DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crabtree (US 2013/0048099) in view of Ha (KR 20180020186, English translation appended). Regarding Claim 1:In Figures 1-6, Crabtree discloses an adding system (1, 2, see system in Figures 1-2) for fire-extinguishing units (used in firefight industry as mentioned in the abstract) for producing a mixture of extinguishing agent (water, see paragraph [0023]) and extinguishing agent additive (additive of choice, see paragraph [0023]) by adding an extinguishing agent additive to an extinguishing agent (see paragraph [0023], comprising a motor (1) able to be driven by a flow of extinguishing agent (as mentioned paragraph [0023]), with an input (fluid coupling 3) for supplying the extinguishing agent to the motor (as mentioned paragraph [0023]), an output (4) for discharging the extinguishing agent from the motor (as mentioned paragraph [0023]), and an output shaft (9) able to be driven by the motor (see paragraph [0025]), an adding pump (2) for conveying the extinguishing agent additive (see paragraph [0023]) which has an input shaft (interior portions of rotor 13) coupled to the output shaft of the motor (as seen in Figure 5, 13 is coupled to 9), an inlet (5) for providing the extinguishing agent additive, and an outlet (outlet connected conduit assembly 6, see Figure 3) for discharging the extinguishing agent additive (see paragraph [0023]), an adding line (portions of conduit assembly 6 downstream of check valve 8) having a first motor-side end (end of conduit assembly 6 connected to 4, see Figure 3, henceforth referred to as E1) and a second outlet-side end (end of conduit assembly 6 connected to check valve 8, see Figure 2, henceforth referred to as E2), wherein the motor-side end (E1) is fluidly connected to the output of the motor (connected to 4 as seen in Figure 2), an extinguishing agent additive line (line comprising check valve 8 and selector valve 7) having a first pump-side end (end connected to pump 2, henceforth referred to as P1) and a second adding line-side end (end connected to 7 and 8, henceforth referred to as P2), wherein the pump-side end (P1) is fluidly connected to the outlet of the adding pump (as seen in Figure 3, P1 is connected to the pump outlet) and the adding line-side end (P2) is fluidly connected to the adding line at an admixture point (admixture point formed by selector valve 7). Crabtree discloses that the adding pump (2) is a vane pump and so fails to disclose that the adding pump may be a piston pump with a plurality of pistons. Crabtree also fails to disclose that inlet of the adding pump is arranged such that the extinguishing additive agent can flow into the adding pump substantially parallel to the direction of movement of at least one of the pistons of the adding pump. However, in Figure 3, Ha discloses a similar fire extinguishing system comprising an adding pump (482) which is a piston pump driven by a motor (480) comprising a plurality of pistons to deliver a continuous supply of extinguishing agent (see page 26, paragraphs 3-4 of the translation). The adding pump (482) further comprises an inlet (486) that is arranged parallel to the direction of movement of the pistons (while not clearly shown in Figure 3, one of ordinary skill would realize that the direction of motion of the pistons in 482 would be perpendicular to the motor shaft from motor 480 and so also parallel to the inlet 486 since this arrangement with a motor driving a crankshaft coupled to the pistons is extremely well known in the art). Hence, based on Ha’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have replaced Crabtree’s adding pump with a piston pump comprising a plurality of pistons and an inlet parallel to the direction of movement of the pistons (of the type taught by Ha) by modifying Crabtree’s motor output shaft (9) to be coupled to a crankshaft in the piston pump (as described in Ha’s translation, page 26, paragraph 4), since doing so would be obvious to try and would yield predictable results such as providing a piston pump that would deliver a continuous supply of extinguishing agent additive and an inlet ensuring a smooth delivery of extinguishing agent additive to the piston pump. Assuming arguendo that the applicant is not persuaded that the inlet is substantially parallel to the direction of movement of the pistons (as would be extremely well known in the art as described above), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the inlet of the adding pump to be substantially parallel to the direction of movement of the pistons, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Crabtree as modified by Ha fails to disclose the claim 1 limitation that states: “wherein the inlet of the adding pump is arranged at the adding pump such that the extinguishing agent additive can flow into the adding pump substantially parallel to the direction of movement of at least one piston of the plurality of pistons of the adding pump.” The applicant has argued that Ha’s inlet (486) turns to a perpendicular direction when entering the pump (482). However this is a very narrow interpretation of the inlet of the pump. The pipe (486) is substantially parallel to the direction of translation of the pistons in Ha’s pump. This pipe (486) clearly forms the inlet into the pump and forms a substantially long inlet into the pump. In other words, the majority or substantial portion of the inlet into the pump is positioned in a direction parallel to the movement of the pistons. The term “substantially” is a broad term. As mentioned in MPEP 2173.05(b), III. “The term “substantially” is often used in conjunction with another term to describe a particular characteristic of the claimed invention. It is a broad term. In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960).” Broadly interpreted, most of Ha’s inlet into the pump is parallel to the direction of motion of the pistons. In order for this argument to be persuasive, the specific positioning of the inlet with respect to the pump housing for instance would have to be claimed. Stating that the inlet is located directly below the pistons thereby ensuring that the flow into the pump is parallel to the piston movement would be more persuasive for this argument. Otherwise, as presented, a majority of Ha’s inlet into the pump is parallel as presented and this inlet is the entry point into the pump as the inlet is considered part of the pump.
Due to these reasons, these arguments are not considered persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached on 469-295-9278. 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.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746