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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application on 2/13/2026 after a final rejection was mailed 10/15/2026. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The response filed on February 13, 2026 is acknowledged. Three pages of amended claims were received on 2/13/2026. Claims 3-4 and 6-7 have been amended. Claims 17-19 are newly presented. Claims 3, 6, and 19 are objected to for informalities as noted below. Claims 3-4, 6-7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below. Claims 17-18 are objected to and contain allowable subject matter as noted below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/23/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 3 Line 3, “the plastic spray pipe” should be revised to “the plastic pipe” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 3 Line 4, “the pipe” should be revised to “the plastic pipe” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 3 Lines 6-7, “the one cylinder of carbon dioxide gas” should be revised to “the one cylinder” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 3 Line 9, “in the air feeding the fire” should be revised to “in air that is feeding the fire” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 6 Line 5, “a plastic spray pipe” should be revised to “a plastic pipe” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 6 Line 6, “the plastic spray pipe” should be revised to “the plastic pipe” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 6 Line 11, “in the air feeding the fire” should be revised to “in air that is feeding the fire” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 19 Line 3, “the plastic spray pipe” should be revised to “the plastic pipe” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 19 Line 4, “the pipe” should be revised to “the plastic pipe” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 19 Line 6, “in the air feeding the fire” should be revised to “in air that is feeding the fire” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 19 Lines 8-9 “the one cylinder of carbon dioxide gas” should be revised to “the one cylinder” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 3-4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2009/0032272 A1 to Duncan (“Duncan”) in view of US Patent 3,682,250 A to Horwinski (“Horwinski”) and US PGPUB 2004/0163825 A1 to Dunster et al. (“Dunster”).
As to Claim 3, Duncan discloses a method of extinguishing a fire (See Fig. 3 and Paragraph 0056) comprising steps of:
carrying, by a fire fighter on a back of the fire fighter (See Paragraph 0056 disclosing a fire fighting backpack sprayer), one cylinder of fire extinguishant (#10) and a pipe (#6), the pipe including a first end orifice (See an inlet end orifice of #6 that attaches to #9) and a second end orifice only (See an outlet end orifice of #6 at nozzle #11), the first end orifice of the pipe being communicatively connected to the one cylinder (See Fig. 3 and Paragraph 0059); and
spraying, via the second end orifice only of the plastic pipe, by the fire fighter without using drones, fire extinguishant from the one cylinder to reduce a ratio of oxygen available in the air feeding the fire to extinguish the fire (See Paragraph 0006 and Claim 31. Fire extinguishant is sprayed out of #6 via #11. See Paragraph 0049 disclosing that the fire extinguishant can be foam that includes CO2, thus spraying the fire extinguishant will reduce a ratio of oxygen available in air feeding the fire to some extent to extinguish a fire).
Regarding Claim 3, in reference to the method of Duncan as applied to Claim 3 above, Duncan does not specifically disclose wherein the one cylinder contains only carbon dioxide gas, wherein the pipe is a plastic pipe, and wherein the carbon dioxide gas is sprayed into, on or around a burning building, house or apartment (See Paragraph 0049 disclosing a foam that contains CO2, however the cylinder containing only CO2 gas is not disclosed. Specific materials of the pipe #6 are not disclosed. Specific areas that fluid is sprayed are not disclosed.).
However, Horwinski discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Col. 1 Lines 33-35), a method of extinguishing a fire (See Fig. 3) comprising a step of spraying, using a plastic pipe and without using drones (See Col. 2 Lines 15-20 disclosing a plastic hose and See Col. 4 Lines 4-6 disclosing PVC), carbon dioxide gas only from a cylinder (See Col. 2 Lines 15-25 disclosing CO2 and See Col. 3 Lines 10-15 disclosing cylinder #18 that is shown in Fig. 1) into, on or around a burning building, house or apartment to reduce a ratio of oxygen available in the air feeding the fire to extinguish the fire (See Fig. 3 and See Col. 3 Lines 29-40 disclosing the fire extinguisher being used in a building. When CO2 is applied in a building, a ratio of oxygen available in air feeding a fire is reduced.).
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Duncan as applied to Claim 3 above such that the fire extinguishant is only carbon dioxide and is used to extinguish a fire in a building, since doing so would utilize substitution of a known fire extinguishing fluid to yield the predictable result of using a suitable fluid for extinguishing a building fire (See Horwinski Col. 2 Lines 20-25) to prevent the building from burning down. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Duncan as applied to Claim 3 above such that the hose of Duncan is a plastic hose, since doing so would use a novel flexible material that is suitable for dispensing fire extinguishant (See Horwinski Col. 3 Lines 5-7 and Col. 4 Lines 4-10).
Regarding Claim 3, in reference to the method of Duncan in view of Horwinski as applied to Claim 3 above, Duncan as modified by Horwinski does not specifically disclose wherein a ratio of oxygen available in the air feeding the fire is reduced to below fifteen percent to extinguish the fire (See Paragraph 0006 of Duncan disclosing fighting a fire, which reduces a ratio of oxygen available in air, but reducing a ratio of oxygen below a certain percentage is not disclosed).
However, Dunster discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Paragraph 0002) a method of extinguishing a fire comprising spraying gas to reduce a ratio of oxygen available in air feeding a fire to below fifteen percent to extinguish the fire (See Paragraph 0041 disclosing spraying inert gas to reduce an oxygen concentration to 13.3% in order to fully extinguish a fire when taking into account safety factors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Duncan in view of Horwinski as applied to Claim 3 above such that a ratio of oxygen available in the air feeding the fire is reduced to below fifteen percent to extinguish the fire as taught by Dunster since doing so would yield the predictable result of ensuring that the fire is fully extinguished when taking into account a safety factor (See Dunster Paragraph 0041).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the method of Duncan in view of Horwinski and Dunster as applied to Claim 3 above, Duncan further discloses wherein the plastic pipe is configured to be supported by a rigid pole or an extendable pipe (See Duncan Fig. 3, the pipe #6, which is modified to be made of PVC, is structured such that it is capable of being supported by some pole that is rigid or by some pipe that is extendable).
As to Claim 19, Duncan discloses a method of extinguishing a fire (See Fig. 3 and Paragraph 0056) comprising steps of:
carrying, by a fire fighter on a back of the fire fighter (See Paragraph 0056 disclosing a fire fighting backpack sprayer), one cylinder only of fire extinguishant (#10) and a pipe (#6), the pipe including a first end orifice (See an inlet end orifice of #6 that attaches to #9) and a second end orifice only (See an outlet end orifice of #6 at nozzle #11), the first end orifice of the pipe being communicatively connected to the one cylinder (See Fig. 3 and Paragraph 0059); and
reducing a ratio of oxygen available in the air feeding the fire to extinguish the fire by spraying, via the second end orifice only of the pipe, by the fire fighter without using drones, fire extinguishant from the one cylinder (See Paragraph 0006 and Claim 31. Fire extinguishant is sprayed out of #6 via #11. See Paragraph 0049 disclosing that the fire extinguishant can be foam that includes CO2, thus spraying the fire extinguishant will reduce a ratio of oxygen available in air feeding the fire to some extent to extinguish a fire).
Regarding Claim 19, in reference to the method of Duncan as applied to Claim 19 above, Duncan does not specifically disclose wherein the one cylinder contains only carbon dioxide gas, wherein the pipe is a plastic pipe, and wherein the carbon dioxide gas is sprayed into, on or around a burning building, house or apartment (See Paragraph 0049 disclosing a foam that contains CO2, however the cylinder containing only CO2 gas is not disclosed. Specific materials of the pipe #6 are not disclosed. Specific areas that fluid is sprayed are not disclosed.).
However, Horwinski discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Col. 1 Lines 33-35), a method of extinguishing a fire (See Fig. 3) comprising a step of spraying, using a plastic pipe and without using drones (See Col. 2 Lines 15-20 disclosing a plastic hose and See Col. 4 Lines 4-6 disclosing PVC), carbon dioxide gas only from a cylinder (See Col. 2 Lines 15-25 disclosing CO2 and See Col. 3 Lines 10-15 disclosing cylinder #18 that is shown in Fig. 1) into, on or around a burning building, house or apartment to reduce a ratio of oxygen available in the air feeding the fire to extinguish the fire (See Fig. 3 and See Col. 3 Lines 29-40 disclosing the fire extinguisher being used in a building. When CO2 is applied in a building, a ratio of oxygen available in air feeding a fire is reduced.).
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Duncan as applied to Claim 19 above such that the fire extinguishant is only carbon dioxide and is used to extinguish a fire in a building, since doing so would utilize substitution of a known fire extinguishing fluid to yield the predictable result of using a suitable fluid for extinguishing a building fire (See Horwinski Col. 2 Lines 20-25) to prevent the building from burning down. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Duncan as applied to Claim 19 above such that the hose of Duncan is a plastic hose, since doing so would use a novel flexible material that is suitable for dispensing fire extinguishant (See Horwinski Col. 3 Lines 5-7 and Col. 4 Lines 4-10).
Regarding Claim 19, in reference to the method of Duncan in view of Horwinski as applied to Claim 19 above, Duncan as modified by Horwinski does not specifically disclose wherein a ratio of oxygen available in the air feeding the fire is reduced to below fifteen percent to extinguish the fire by spraying (See Paragraph 0006 of Duncan disclosing fighting a fire, which reduces a ratio of oxygen available in air, but reducing a ratio of oxygen below a certain percentage is not disclosed).
However, Dunster discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Paragraph 0002) a method of extinguishing a fire comprising spraying gas to reduce a ratio of oxygen available in air feeding a fire to below fifteen percent to extinguish the fire (See Paragraph 0041 disclosing spraying inert gas to reduce an oxygen concentration to 13.3% in order to fully extinguish a fire when taking into account safety factors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Duncan in view of Horwinski as applied to Claim 19 above such that a ratio of oxygen available in the air feeding the fire is reduced to below fifteen percent to extinguish the fire as taught by Dunster since doing so would yield the predictable result of ensuring that the fire is fully extinguished when taking into account a safety factor (See Dunster Paragraph 0041).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan in view of Horwinski, US Patent 4,053,001 to Healey et al. (“Healey”), and Dunster.
As to Claim 6, Duncan discloses a method of extinguishing fires (See Fig. 3 and Paragraph 0056) comprising steps of:
carrying, one cylinder of fire extinguishant (#10, which can be carried per Paragraph 0056);
communicatively connecting a first end orifice (See an inlet end orifice of #6 that attaches to #9) of a pipe (#6) to the one cylinder of fire extinguishant (See Fig. 3), the pipe including the first end orifice (See Fig. 3) and a second end orifice only (See an outlet end orifice of #6 at nozzle #11); and
spraying, via the second end orifice only of the pipe without using drones, fire extinguishant only from the one cylinder on the fire, wherein the fire extinguishant reduces a ratio of oxygen available in the air feeding the fire to extinguish the fire (See Paragraph 0006 and Claim 31. Fire extinguishant is sprayed out of #6 via #11. See Paragraph 0049 disclosing that the fire extinguishant can be foam that includes CO2, thus spraying the fire extinguishant will reduce a ratio of oxygen available in air feeding the fire to some extent to extinguish a fire).
Regarding Claim 6, in reference to the method of Duncan as applied to Claim 6 above, Duncan does not specifically disclose wherein the one cylinder contains only carbon dioxide gas, wherein the pipe is a plastic pipe, and wherein the fire is a building fire (See Paragraph 0049 disclosing a foam that contains CO2, however the cylinder containing only CO2 gas is not disclosed. Specific materials of the pipe #6 are not disclosed. Specific areas that fluid is sprayed are not disclosed.).
However, Horwinski discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Col. 1 Lines 33-35), a method of extinguishing a building fire (See Fig. 3) comprising a step of spraying, using a plastic pipe and without using drones (See Col. 2 Lines 15-20 disclosing a plastic hose and See Col. 4 Lines 4-6 disclosing PVC), carbon dioxide gas only from a cylinder (See Col. 2 Lines 15-25 disclosing CO2 and See Col. 3 Lines 10-15 disclosing cylinder #18 that is shown in Fig. 1) into a burning building to reduce a ratio of oxygen available in the air feeding the fire to extinguish the building fire (See Fig. 3 and See Col. 3 Lines 29-40 disclosing the fire extinguisher being used in a building. When CO2 is applied in a building, a ratio of oxygen available in air feeding a fire is reduced.).
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Duncan as applied to Claim 6 above such that the fire extinguishant is only carbon dioxide and is used to extinguish a fire in a building, since doing so would utilize substitution of a known fire extinguishing fluid to yield the predictable result of using a suitable fluid for extinguishing a building fire (See Horwinski Col. 2 Lines 20-25) to prevent the building from burning down. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Duncan as applied to Claim 6 above such that the hose of Duncan is a plastic hose, since doing so would use a novel flexible material that is suitable for dispensing fire extinguishant (See Horwinski Col. 3 Lines 5-7 and Col. 4 Lines 4-10).
Regarding Claim 6, in reference to the method of Duncan in view of Horwinski as applied to Claim 6 above, Duncan does not specifically disclose carrying by a fire truck the one cylinder of carbon dioxide gas and delivering by the fire truck the one cylinder of carbon dioxide gas to a site of a building fire, and wherein the carbon dioxide gas is sucked into the building fire.
However, Healey discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Col. 1 Lines 5-15) a method of extinguishing building fires (See Fig. 12) comprising steps of carrying by a fire truck (See #119 in Fig. 12) a container of gas (#79) and delivering by the fire truck the container of gas to a site of a building fire (#115), and wherein the gas is sucked into the building fire (See Col. 13 Lines 9-19 disclosing spraying fluid agent into #115 through window #117. If #115 is on fire and agent is sprayed into a windows of #115, then the agent will be at least partially sucked into #115 when extinguishing the fire).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Duncan in view of Horwinski as applied to Claim 6 above such that the method includes steps of carrying by a fire truck the one cylinder of carbon dioxide gas and delivering by the fire truck the one cylinder of carbon dioxide gas to a site of a building fire, and wherein the carbon dioxide gas is sucked into the building fire as taught by Healey, since doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to transport the one cylinder to a location of a building fire such that areas in the building are accessible for extinguishing the fire (See Healey Fig. 12 and Col. 13 Lines 9-19).
Regarding Claim 6, in reference to the method of Duncan in view of Horwinski and Healey as applied to Claim 6 above, Duncan as modified by Horwinski and Healey does not specifically disclose wherein a ratio of oxygen available in the air feeding the fire is reduced to below fifteen percent to extinguish the fire by spraying (See Paragraph 0006 of Duncan disclosing fighting a fire, which reduces a ratio of oxygen available in air, but reducing a ratio of oxygen below a certain percentage is not disclosed).
However, Dunster discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Paragraph 0002) a method of extinguishing a fire comprising spraying gas to reduce a ratio of oxygen available in air feeding a fire to below fifteen percent to extinguish the fire (See Paragraph 0041 disclosing spraying inert gas to reduce an oxygen concentration to 13.3% in order to fully extinguish a fire when taking into account safety factors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Duncan in view of Horwinski and Healey as applied to Claim 6 above such that a ratio of oxygen available in the air feeding the fire is reduced to below fifteen percent to extinguish the fire as taught by Dunster since doing so would yield the predictable result of ensuring that the fire is fully extinguished when taking into account a safety factor (See Dunster Paragraph 0041).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the method of Duncan in view of Horwinski, Healey, and Dunster as applied to Claim 6 above, Duncan as modified by Horwinski, Healey, and Dunster Healey further discloses the method comprising:
aiming the second orifice end of the plastic pipe at openings in the building fire to spray the carbon dioxide gas into the burning building (See Healey Fig. 12 and Col. 13 Lines 9-19), wherein the carbon dioxide gas expands and reduces an amount of oxygen causing the building fire to be extinguished (See Horwinski Col. 6 Lines 15-20 disclosing CO2 gas extinguishing the fire in a building. When carbon dioxide gas is applied into a building, the carbon dioxide gas will expand and displace oxygen around flames, thus causing the fire to be extinguished).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in dependent Claim 17: “wherein carbon dioxide gas remaining after the fire is extinguished flows to lower levels of the building, house or apartment, said method further comprising blowing the remaining carbon dioxide gas out of the lower levels so people can breathe in the lower levels”.
Regarding Claim 17, in reference to the method of Duncan in view of Horwinski and Dunster as applied to Claim 3 above, Duncan as modified by Horwinski and Dunster does not disclose wherein carbon dioxide gas remaining after the fire is extinguished flows to lower levels of the building, house or apartment, said method further comprising blowing the remaining carbon dioxide gas out of the lower levels so people can breathe in the lower levels (See Horwinski Col. 3 Lines 29-35 disclosing extinguishing a fire with carbon dioxide within a building, but blowing away a flow of carbon dioxide in lower levels of a building is not disclosed). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be motivated to further modify the method of Duncan in view of Horwinski and Dunster such that carbon dioxide gas remaining after the fire is extinguished flows to lower levels of the building and is blown out of the lower levels so people can breathe in the lower levels, as there is no prior teaching in Duncan, Horwinski, Dunster, or other prior art that indicates that making such a modification would be an obvious design choice without utilizing improper hindsight.
The prior art fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in dependent Claim 18: “wherein carbon dioxide gas remaining after the fire is extinguished flows to lower levels of the building, said method further comprising blowing the remaining carbon dioxide gas out of the lower levels so people can breathe in the lower levels.”.
Regarding Claim 18, in reference to the method of Duncan in view of Horwinski, Healey, and Dunster as applied to Claim 6 above, Duncan as modified by Horwinski, Healey, and Dunster does not disclose wherein carbon dioxide gas remaining after the fire is extinguished flows to lower levels of the building, said method further comprising blowing the remaining carbon dioxide gas out of the lower levels so people can breathe in the lower levels (See Healey Fig. 12 and Col. 13 Lines 9-19 disclosing extinguishing a fire with gas sprayed in a building, but blowing away a flow of carbon dioxide in lower levels of a building is not disclosed). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be motivated to further modify the method of Duncan in view of Horwinski, Healey, and Dunster such that carbon dioxide gas remaining after the fire is extinguished flows to lower levels of the building and is blown out of the lower levels so people can breathe in the lower levels, as there is no prior teaching in Duncan, Horwinski, Healey, Dunster, or other prior art that indicates that making such a modification would be an obvious design choice without utilizing improper hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, in response to Applicant's previously presented piecemeal analysis of the references, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. The claimed invention need not be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the applied references, taken as a whole, would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) and In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence indicating that the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having those teachings before him to make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, it has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). As to the desirability of the modification, the proper inquiry is “whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination,’ not whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest that the combination is the most desirable combination available.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are proper.
Applicant’s additional arguments with respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the final rejection mailed 10/15/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As noted above, Claims 17-18 are 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
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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 on (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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 February 24, 2026