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 .
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 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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a call device” in claims 14 and 17. This satisfies the three-prong test because A) it uses a generic placeholder “device”; B) it is modified by functional language “for requesting the transportation system to be delivered”; and C) it is not modified by any structural limitations.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Specification does not actually disclose any structure for what constitutes a call device, which renders the claims indefinite. See 112(b) rejection below.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 8, 11 and 14-20 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 8 recites the limitation "the drone" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “sufficient size to encompass a vehicle” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” 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. As such, it is not clear what encompasses a size sufficient to fit a vehicle. This is indefinite because vehicles come in all shapes and sizes - from a bicycle to an airplane. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are not well defined.
Claim 14 discloses the step of “providing a portable shelter configured to protect the person from in the protected area”. This sentence does not make sense and appears to be missing wording, which renders the limitation indefinite. For examination purposes and based on disclosure, Examiner will interpret the limitation as: providing a portable shelter configured to protect the person from a fire in the protected area.
Claims 14 and 17 disclose the limitation “a call device” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As such, it is unclear what constitutes a call device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 15-16 are indefinite for depending on claim 14.
Claims 18-20 are indefinite for depending on claim 17.
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 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall Jr (U.S. 5,630,296) in view of Dor (U.S. 2022/0001222) and Albright (U.S. 8,998,666).
Regarding claim 1, Kendall teaches a method of protecting a person from a fire in a fire zone (as disclosed in col 2, lines 5-8), comprising the steps of:
providing a portable fire shelter (defined by emergency structure 10) configured to protect the person from heat in the fire zone (as disclosed in col 3, lines 15-40, the structure 10 is portable and configured to protect a person, fireman 18, from approaching flames, i.e. it protects the person from heat in a fire zone).
However, Kendall does not teach the method including steps of: providing a transportation system configured to transport said fire shelter into the fire zone; providing a communication system configured to accept a request from the person for requesting that the transportation system deliver the portable fire shelter to the location of the person in the fire zone; and the transportation system delivering the portable fire shelter to the location of the person in the fire zone.
Dor teaches a method for delivering a fire shelter (fire blanket 351) including step of: providing a transportation system (vehicle 358) configured to transport said fire shelter into the fire zone (as disclosed in Par 0036 the shelter/blanket is transported and deployed to a target area; Par 0041 identifies the target area as a burning location, i.e. a fire zone).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kendall to incorporate the teachings of Dor to provide a transportation system to transport the shelter to the fire in order to allow for quick and smooth deployment of the fire barrier (as disclosed in abstract of Dor). This would be beneficial to the method of Kendall because it ensures that any person can be provided with the fire shelter via airborne delivery. In other words, this would protect people from an incoming fire who do not carry a fire barrier with them, in a timely manner. In combination, the transportation system would deliver the portable fire shelter to the location of the person in the fire zone.
Albright teaches a rescue method that includes a step of: providing a communication system (defined by transmitter 100 and receiver 200) configured to accept a request from a person (10) for requesting transport of a rescue device (35) to the location of the person (as disclosed in col 4, line 59 to col 5, line 9: the transmitter sends a distress signal to the receiver, wherein the signal is a request to deliver the rescue device to the location of the person).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kendall and Dor to incorporate the teachings of Albright to provide a communication system configured to accept a request from the person for requesting delivery of the portable fire shelter to the location of the person in order to automatically (col 4 line 43 of Albright) provide instantaneous aid to the person in need (as disclosed in col 5, lines 23-27 of Albright). This modification would work well with the transport system of Dor, since Dor teaches the aircraft being an unmanned drone controlled automatically (see Pars 0072 and 0153).
Examiner notes that Kendall, Dor and Albright are reasonable pertinent to each other, since their methods are directed at providing safety and rescue measures to a person in distress.
Regarding claim 10, Kendall, Dor and Albright teach the method of claim 1, further comprising the step of automatically deploying said fires shelter in said fire zone (Pars 0072 and 0153 of Dor disclose the aircraft being unamend and automatically controlled; Par 0036 discloses the shelter/blanket is transported and deployed to a target area; Par 0041 identifies the target area as a burning location, i.e. a fire zone).
Regarding claim 11, a best understood, Kendall, Dor and Albright teach the portable fire shelter of claim 1, wherein said fire shelter includes an interior space is of sufficient size to encompass a vehicle (as best understood, the interior space of shelter 10 of Kendall is sized to encompass vehicle 32, as seen in Fig 6).
Regarding claim 12, Kendall, Dor and Albright teach the method of claim 1, wherein said protected area includes a temperature greater than 1000°F in the immediate vicinity of the person in the fire zone (col 1, line 52 of Kendall discloses the shelter protecting the person from a fire having a temperature of at least 2,000°F).
Regarding claim 13, Kendall, Dor and Albright teach the method of claim 1, wherein said communication system includes a call device configured to be carried by the person (the communication system of Albright includes a transmitter 100, that is carried by the person, wherein the transmitter acts as a beacon and sends radio signals to the receiver, see col 6, lines 43-48 of Albright; wherein the transmitter is considered “a call device” because it communicates with signals to the other parts of the communication system. Examiner notes that “call device” is broadly claimed with no structural or functional language attached in the claim).
Regarding claim 14, Kendall teaches a method of protecting a person in a protected area (as disclosed in col 2, lines 5-8, wherein the protected area is interpreted as an area prone to fires), comprising the steps of:
providing a portable shelter (defined by emergency structure 10) configured to protect the person from a fire in the protected area (as disclosed in col 3, lines 15-40, the structure 10 is portable and configured to protect a person, fireman 18, from approaching flames, i.e. it protects the person from a fire).
However, Kendall does not teach the method including the steps of: providing a transportation system configured to transport said shelter into the protected area; providing a communication system including a call device, said communication system configured to accept a request from the person using the call device for requesting that the transportation system deliver the portable shelter to the location of the person in the protected area; and the transportation system delivering the portable shelter to the location of the person.
Dor teaches a method for delivering a fire shelter (fire blanket 351) including step of: providing a transportation system (vehicle 358) configured to transport said shelter into the fire zone, i.e. protected area (as disclosed in Par 0036 the shelter/blanket is transported and deployed to a target area; Par 0041 identifies the target area as a burning location, i.e. a fire zone).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kendall to incorporate the teachings of Dor to provide a transportation system to transport the shelter to the fire in order to allow for quick and smooth deployment of the fire barrier (as disclosed in abstract of Dor). This would be beneficial to the method of Kendall because it ensures that any person can be provided with the fire shelter via airborne delivery. In other words, this would protect people from an incoming fire who do not carry a fire barrier with them, in a timely manner. In combination, the transportation system would deliver the portable shelter to the location of the person in the fire zone.
Albright teaches a rescue method that includes a step of: providing a communication system (defined by transmitter 100 and receiver 200) including a call device (as best understood, the communication system includes a transmitter 100, wherein the transmitter acts as a beacon and sends radio signals to the receiver, see col 6, lines 43-48; wherein the transmitter is considered “a call device” because it communicates with signals to the other parts of the communication system. Examiner notes that the “call device” was rendered indefinite, see rejection above), said communication system configured to accept a request from a person (10) using the call device (transmitter 100 is carried by the person, see Fig 1) for requesting transport of a rescue device (35) to the location of the person (as disclosed in col 4, line 59 to col 5, line 9: the transmitter sends a distress signal to the receiver, wherein the signal is a request to deliver the rescue device to the location of the person).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kendall and Dor to incorporate the teachings of Albright to provide a communication system configured to accept a request from the person for requesting delivery of the portable fire shelter to the location of the person in order to automatically (col 4 line 43 of Albright) provide instantaneous aid to the person in need (as disclosed in col 5, lines 23-27 of Albright). This modification would work well with the transport system of Dor, since Dor teaches the aircraft being an unmanned drone controlled automatically (see Pars 0072 and 0153).
Examiner notes that Kendall, Dor and Albright are reasonable pertinent to each other, since their methods are directed at providing safety and rescue measures to a person in distress.
Regarding claim 15, Kendall, Dor and Albright teach the method of claim 14, wherein said protected area is a fire zone (as disclosed in col 2, lines 5-8 of Kendall and in the abstract of Dor) and wherein said portable shelter is configured as a fire shelter (shelter 10 of Kendall is a fire shelter) to protect the person from excessive heat in the fire zone (as disclosed in col 3, lines 15-40 of Kendall, the structure 10 is portable and configured to protect a person, fireman 18, from approaching flames, i.e. it protects the person from heat in a fire zone).
Regarding claim 16, Kendall, Dor and Albright teach the method of claim 14, wherein said transportation system includes a drone aircraft configured to transport said shelter (as seen in Fig 3B of Dor, the shelter 351 is transported by the aircraft 258; Par 0154 of Dor discloses the aircraft as a drone).
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall Jr (U.S. 5,630,296) in view of Dor (U.S. 2022/0001222) and Albright (U.S. 8,998,666); further in view of Gross et al (U.S. 2008/0050565).
Regarding claim 2, Kendall, Dor and Albright teach the method of claim 1. However, they do not teach the portable fire shelter including: a layer of absorbent material; and a fire resistant substance impregnating said layer of absorbent material.
Gross teaches a flexible thermally insulating fire-retardant composite pad (such as 40 or 70, seen in Figs 4 and 7) comprising: a layer (10) of absorbent material (layer 10 includes fiber, such as cotton – Par 0131, 0134; wherein the layer is absorbent – Par 0143; furthermore, Applicant discloses in their own Specification, Par 0036, that the absorbent layer is cotton), a fire resistant substance (ammonium polyphosphate or phosphate ester fire-retardants – Par 0230-0231; note that Applicant discloses in their own Specification, Par 0037, that the fire-resistant substance can be a phosphorous containing compound) impregnating said layer of absorbent material (Pars 0230-0231 disclose these fire retardant being sprayed/applied onto the cellulosic fibers, i.e. the cotton fibers).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kendall to incorporate the teachings of Gross to provide the shelter with a layer of absorbent material impregnated with a fire resistance substance in order to effectively block the fire in an affordable manner (as disclosed in Par 0016 and 0202 of Gross), which would make the fire shelter of Kendall more marketable.
Regarding claim 3, Kendall, Dor, Albright and Gross teach the method of claim 2, wherein said fire shelter is configured to deploy in a manner to form an interior space (interior space of fire shelter 10, which houses the person 18, seen in Fig 2 of Kendall) that is protected from exceeding 200°F for at least 15 minutes when said fire shelter is deployed in the fire zone (col 1, line 52 of Kendall discloses the shelter protecting the person from a fire having a temperature of at least 2,000°F; Moreover, Gross teaches the shelter being made of materials that are the same as Applicant’s invention; as such, in combination the shelter protects its interior space from exceeding 200°F for at least 15 minutes, as claimed).
Regarding claim 4, Kendall, Dor, Albright and Gross teach the method of claim 2, wherein said fire resistant substance is a liquid or gel (Pars 0230-0231 of Gross disclose the fire resistant substances, ammonium polyphosphate or phosphate ester, as liquid).
Regarding claim 5, Kendall, Dor, Albright and Gross teach the method of claim 2, said fire resistant substance including acrylamide and/or bisacrylamide (Par 0139 of Gross teaches the fibers, i.e. the absorbent material which are impregnated by the fire resistant substance, as including polyacrylamide; wherein polyacrylamide is a synthetic polymer made from acrylamide subunits).
If it is found that Gross does not teach the fire resistant substance including acrylamide and/or bisacrylamide, It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the fire resistant substance to include any suitable material, including acrylamide and/or bisacrylamide , since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is considered prima facie obviousness given that it performs the same function as it was determined in In re Leshin (see MPEP 2144.07). In the present case, Gross discloses all the general structure of the material of the fire shelter. Furthermore, Applicant has not provided criticality for including acrylamide and/or bisacrylamide in the fire resistance substance. In fact, Applicant discloses in their specification (Par 0037) that the fire resistant substance can include a phosphorous containing compound, which is the same compound that Gross discloses in Pars 0230-0231. Therefore, this is further considered an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 6, Kendall, Dor, Albright and Gross teach the method of claim 2, said layer of absorbent material including felt or a woven material (Par 0193 of Gross discloses airfelt as the nonwoven structure, i.e. the material for layer 10; that is, Gross discloses a type of felt as the absorbent material) (Examiner notes that “a woven material” is not positively claimed, as such, the prior art does not need to teach it in order to read on claim language).
Regarding claim 7, Kendall, Dor, Albright and Gross teach method of claim 2, wherein said fire shelter further includes packaging (layer 11 of Gross) configured to prevent said fire resistant substance from evaporating from, or hardening within, said layer of absorbent material (layer 11 is disclosed as a thermoplastic material, see Par 0172 and 0173 of Gross; As disclosed by Applicant in Par 0042: the packaging is designed to burn off or melt from heat to expose the shelter to during deployment; Layer 11 of Gross is disclosed as a thermoplastic material which would act in the same manner as claimed: it would prevent the fire resistant substance from evaporating from, or hardening within said layer of absorbent material before exposure to the fire, and then it would melt in the presence of the fire to expose the shelter).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Kendall, Dor, Albright and Gross teach the method of claim 7, wherein said fire shelter further includes deployment structure (defined by deployment portions 352 and 353 of Dor, seen in Fig 3B) and configured to attach said fire shelter in said packaging (layer 11 of Gross) to a drone (as seen in Fig 3B of Dor, the deployment structure attaches the shelter 351 to the aircraft 258; Par 0154 of Dor discloses the aircraft as a drone).
Regarding claim 9, Kendall, Dor and Albright teach the method of claim 1, wherein said fire shelter is configured to deploy in a manner to form an interior space (interior space of fire shelter 10, which houses the person 18, seen in Fig 2 of Kendall) that is protected from exceeding 200°F for at least 15 minutes when said fire shelter is deployed in the fire zone (col 1, line 52 of Kendall discloses the shelter protecting the person from a fire having a temperature of at least 2,000°F).
If it found that Kendall does not teach a fire shelter that protects the interior space from exceeding 200°F for at least 15 minutes when said fire shelter is deployed in the fire zone, Gross teaches a flexible thermally insulating fire-retardant composite pad (such as 40 or 70, seen in Figs 4 and 7) comprising: a layer (10) of absorbent material (layer 10 includes fiber, such as cotton – Par 0131, 0134; wherein the layer is absorbent – Par 0143; furthermore, Applicant discloses in their own Specification, Par 0036, that the absorbent layer is cotton), a fire resistant substance (ammonium polyphosphate or phosphate ester fire-retardants – Par 0230-0231; note that Applicant discloses in their own Specification, Par 0037, that the fire-resistant substance can be a phosphorous containing compound) impregnating said layer of absorbent material (Pars 0230-0231 disclose these fire retardant being sprayed/applied onto the cellulosic fibers, i.e. the cotton fibers).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kendall to incorporate the teachings of Gross to provide the shelter with a layer of absorbent material impregnated with a fire resistance substance in order to effectively block the fire in an affordable manner (as disclosed in Par 0016 and 0202 of Gross), which would make the fire shelter of Kendall more marketable. Since Gross teaches a fire shelter made with the same material as Applicant’s invention, the fire shelter would protect the interior space from exceeding 200°F for at least 15 minutes when said fire shelter is deployed in the fire zone, as claimed.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall Jr (U.S. 5,630,296) in view of Gross et al (U.S. 2008/0050565), Dor (U.S. 2022/0001222) and Albright (U.S. 8,998,666).
Regarding claim 17, Kendall teaches a method of protecting a person from a fire in a fire zone (as disclosed in col 2, lines 5-8), comprising the steps of:
providing a fire shelter (defined by emergency structure 10, which is provided to person 18).
maintaining a temperature within said protected space of less than 200°F for at least 15 minutes in said fire zone (col 1, line 52 discloses the shelter protecting the person from a fire having a temperature of at least 2,000°F for a period of time).
However, Kendall does not teach the fire shelter comprising a layer of absorbent material, a fire resistant substance in the form of a liquid or gel impregnating said layer of absorbent material, and packaging configured to prevent said fire resistant substance from evaporating from, or hardening within, said layer of absorbent material after said impregnating. Kendall also fails to teach the method comprising the steps of: providing a drone configured to transport said fire shelter into the fire zone; providing a communication system including a call device, said communication system being configured to accept a request from the person using said call device for requesting that the drone deliver the portable fire shelter to the location of the person; said drone transporting said fire shelter to the fire zone; automatically deploying said fire shelter in said fire zone to provide a protected space for said person.
Gross teaches a flexible thermally insulating fire-retardant composite pad (such as 40 or 70, seen in Figs 4 and 7) comprising: a layer (10) of absorbent material (layer 10 includes fiber, such as cotton – Par 0131, 0134; wherein the layer is absorbent – Par 0143; furthermore, Applicant discloses in their own Specification, Par 0036, that the absorbent layer is cotton), a fire resistant substance (ammonium polyphosphate or phosphate ester fire-retardants – Par 0230-0231; note that Applicant discloses in their own Specification, Par 0037, that the fire-resistant substance can be a phosphorous containing compound) in the form of a liquid or gel (Pars 0230-0231 disclose the fire resistant substances, ammonium polyphosphate or phosphate ester, as liquid) impregnating said layer of absorbent material (Pars 0230-0231 disclose these fire retardant being sprayed/applied onto the cellulosic fibers, i.e. the cotton fibers), and packaging (layer 11) configured to prevent said fire resistant substance from evaporating from, or hardening within, said layer of absorbent material after said impregnating (layer 11 is disclosed as a thermoplastic material, see Par 0172 and 0173; As disclosed by Applicant in Par 0042: the packaging is designed to burn off or melt from heat to expose the shelter to during deployment; Layer 11 of Gross is disclosed as a thermoplastic material which would act in the same manner as claimed: it would prevent the fire resistant substance from evaporating from, or hardening within said layer of absorbent material before exposure to the fire, and then it would melt in the presence of the fire to expose the shelter; wherein layer 11 is applied on said layer of absorbent material 10 which already includes the impregnated fire resistance substance, as seen in Fig 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kendall to incorporate the teachings of Gross to provide the shelter with a layer of absorbent material impregnated with a fire resistance substance in order to effectively block the fire in an affordable manner (as disclosed in Par 0016 and 0202 of Gross), which would make the fire shelter of Kendall more marketable. In combination, the fire shelter with as modified by Gross would maintaining a temperature within said protected space of less than 200°F for at least 15 minutes in said fire zone, since Gross teaches the shelter made with the same materials that Applicant discloses in their specification.
Dor teaches a method for delivering a fire shelter (fire blanket 351) including step of: providing a drone (vehicle 358, disclosed as a drone in Par 0072) configured to transport said fire shelter into the fire zone (as disclosed in Par 0036 the shelter/blanket is transported and deployed to a target area; Par 0041 identifies the target area as a burning location, i.e. a fire zone).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kendall to incorporate the teachings of Dor to provide a drone to transport the shelter to the fire in order to allow for quick and smooth deployment of the fire barrier (as disclosed in abstract of Dor). This would be beneficial to the method of Kendall because it ensures that any person can be provided with the fire shelter via airborne delivery. In other words, this would protect people from an incoming fire who do not carry a fire barrier with them, in a timely manner. In combination, the transportation system would deliver the portable fire shelter to the location of the person in the fire zone.
Albright teaches a rescue method that includes a step of: providing a communication system (defined by transmitter 100 and receiver 200) including a call device (as best understood, the communication system includes a transmitter 100, wherein the transmitter acts as a beacon and sends radio signals to the receiver, see col 6, lines 43-48; wherein the transmitter is considered “a call device” because it communicates with signals to the other parts of the communication system. Examiner notes that the “call device” was rendered indefinite, see rejection above), said communication system configured to accept a request from a person (10) using the call device (transmitter 100 is carried by the person, see Fig 1) for requesting transport of a rescue device (35) to the location of the person (as disclosed in col 4, line 59 to col 5, line 9: the transmitter sends a distress signal to the receiver, wherein the signal is a request to deliver the rescue device to the location of the person).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kendall and Dor to incorporate the teachings of Albright to provide a communication system configured to accept a request from the person for requesting delivery of the portable fire shelter to the location of the person in order to automatically (col 4 line 43 of Albright) provide instantaneous aid to the person in need (as disclosed in col 5, lines 23-27 of Albright). This modification would work well with the transport system of Dor, since Dor teaches the aircraft being an unmanned drone controlled automatically (see Pars 0072 and 0153 of Dor). In combination, Dor and Albright teach the steps of said drone transporting said fire shelter to the fire zone (as taught by Dor) in response to the request from the person (as taught by Albright); and automatically deploying said fire shelter in said fire zone to provide a protected space for said person (see Pars 0072 and 0153 of Dor).
Examiner notes that Kendall, Dor and Albright are reasonable pertinent to each other, since their methods are directed at providing safety and rescue measures to a person in distress. And Kendall and Gross are reasonable pertinent to each other, since both teach a fire resistant fabrics.
Regarding claim 18, Kendall, Gross, Dor and Albright teach the method of claim 17, wherein said drone is a drone aircraft (Dor teach the transportation vehicle as an aircraft 358, that can be a drone, see Par 0154).
Regarding claim 19, Kendall, Gross, Dor and Albright teach the method of claim 17, said fire resistant substance includes acrylamide and/or bisacrylamide (Par 0139 of Gross teaches the fibers, i.e. the absorbent material which are impregnated by the fire resistant substance, as including polyacrylamide; wherein polyacrylamide is a synthetic polymer made from acrylamide subunits).
Regarding claim 20, Kendall, Gross, Dor and Albright teach the method of claim 17, wherein said fire zone includes a temperature greater than 1000°F in the immediate vicinity of the person in the fire zone (col 1, line 52 of Kendall discloses the shelter protecting the person from a fire having a temperature of at least 2,000°F).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
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.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights