DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 15-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williamson (US 3,234,962) in view of Mattson (US 3,714,987).
Regarding claim 1, Williamson discloses a method for fighting fires (col. 1, ln. 9-10) from a vehicle (col. 2, ln. 6-7), comprising:
providing a fire suppression apparatus comprising
a water tank (11/13/15/16) for housing water (fig. 1) and a foam tank (12) for housing a foam concentrate (fig. 1), wherein the water tank is configured to attach to the vehicle (col. 6, ln. 34-39) and wherein the water tank is configured to receive the foam concentrate from the foam tank (col. 3, ln. 11-13; fig. 1),
a water/foam pump (10) configured to be supported by the vehicle (col. 4, ln. 14-17), the water/foam pump including an impeller (30), the water/foam pump including an air induction valve comprising a variable air inlet (18/18’, see col. 5, ln. 61-64 and col. 6, ln. 40-42), wherein the air induction valve is disposed at and connected to a suction end of the water foam pump (figs. 1, 7), and
dispensing the foam concentrate from the foam tank and into the water tank to mix with water in the water tank and to form a batch of a liquid water/foam solution in the water tank (col. 3, ln. 11-13; fig. 1);
drawing, by the water/foam pump, the liquid water/foam solution from the water tank and air through the variable air inlet into the suction end of the water/foam pump to pressurize the air and the liquid water/foam solution (figs. 1, 7) for discharge toward a target.
Williamson does not disclose wherein the method is performed from an aerial vehicle or that the impeller is driven by an electric motor.
Mattson teaches a method for fighting fires from a helicopter (col. 1: ln. 30-41) comprising providing a fire suppression apparatus comprising a water tank (32) for housing water and foam held in a foam tank (34a) for housing a foam concentrate, wherein the water and foam concentrate form a liquid fire retardant when mixed (fig. 1, 2, and 5; col. 5: ln. 26-42) and wherein both tanks are attachable to the helicopter (fig. 1), a pump driven by an electric motor (35; col. 5: ln. 33-36), an aimable boom (38 - the boom is interpreted to be aimable by the pilot by maneuvering the helicopter) connected to the pump by a conduit (fig. 5: shown between pieces 36 and 35), and a nozzle (30) on the distal end of the boom from which the pressurized fire retardant and air is dispensed toward a target (fig. 1, 2, and 5; col. 4: ln. 24-37).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method for fighting fires of MacDonald to drive the pump with an electric motor, as taught by Mattson, since this was a known means for driving a water/foam pump of a fire suppression apparatus for fighting fires from an aerial vehicle. One of ordinary skill would be aware of every option for powering the pump and would choose the option best suited to minimize overall weight that provides the required power to drive the pump. It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have modified the method of MacDonald to be performed from an aerial vehicle, as taught by Mattson, since this would provide the ability to fight fires in inaccessible areas (such as wildfires).
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 15-17, Williamson in view of Mattson discloses the method of fighting fire described regarding claim 1 and further,
replenishing the foam tank with foam concentrate (fig. 7), regarding claim 3.
replenishing the water tank with water (fig. 7), regarding claim 4.
configuring the water/foam pump as a centrifugal pump with an axial inlet and a radial outflow impeller (fig. 3 - the inlet of the pump is along an axis, and the outflow from the impeller is along a radius of the outlet), regarding claim 15.
wherein the air reaching the water/foam pump via the air induction valve does not pass through an air compressor (figs. 1, 7), regarding claim 16.
receiving unpressurized atmospheric air by the variable opening of the air induction valve (fig. 1 - the air inlet is open to atmosphere), regarding claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Williamson in view of Mattson discloses the method of fighting fire described regarding claim 1. Williamson further discloses that the foam concentrate is proportioned into the water (col. 3, ln. 11-13). Williamson in view of Mattson does not disclose configuring the interior volume of the foam tank to be five to ten percent of the interior volume of the water tank.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to size the interior volume of the foam tank to be 5 to 10 percent of the interior volume of the water tank since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the size of the interior volume of the foam tank to be 5 to 10 percent of the interior volume of the water tank in order to provide the required amount of foam concentrate for the desired proportion in the water such that both the water in the water tank and the foam concentrate in the foam tank are used up at approximately the same time.
Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williamson in view of Mattson, and further in view of Adamson et al. (US 6,973,975).
Williamson in view of Mattson discloses the method of fighting fire described regarding claim 1. Williamson in view of Mattson does not disclose arranging the foam tank inside the water tank wherein the foam tank is defined by a bladder for housing the foam concentrate.
Adamson teaches a fire suppression apparatus (col. 1, ln. 14-19) comprising a water tank (42) for housing water (col. 4, ln. 22-23) and a foam tank that is defined by a bladder for housing a foam concentrate (42, see col. 4, ln. 19-21), and wherein the bladder is inside the water tank (col. 4, ln. 22-24; fig. 3).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have modified the fire fighting method of Williamson in view of Mattson such that the foam tank is defined by a bladder for housing the foam concentrate and the bladder is inside the water tank, as taught by Adamson, since this allows the foam concentrate to be supplied using the pressure of the water in the water tank (Adamson, col. 4, ln. 45-52).
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williamson in view of Mattson and Adamson, and further in view of MacDonald (US 4,979,571).
Williamson in view of Mattson and Adamson discloses the method of fire fighting described regarding claim 2. Williamson in view of Mattson and Adamson does not disclose the method further includes connecting a retractable pump system to the water tank to replenish the water tank with water, the retractable pump system including a collapsible hose connected on a first end to a reversible, motorized reel for deploying and retrieving the hose, and a submersible water pump positioned on a second end of the hose for pumping water from a water source to the water tank.
MacDonald teaches a fire suppression apparatus for fighting fires from an aerial vehicle (fig. 4), comprising,
a water tank (14/16/42) for housing water (col. 6, ln. 11-14), the water tank configured for attachment to the aerial vehicle (col. 6, ln. 34-39); a foam tank (28/44) for housing a foam concentrate (col. 6, ln. 42), wherein the water tank is configured to receive the foam concentrate from the foam tank that when mixed with water in the water tank forms a batch of a liquid water/foam solution in the water tank (fig. 6); a centrifugal pump (32/48) with a radial outflow impeller (fig. 6 - interpreted to have a radial outflow impeller since the outflow from the pump is in the radial direction relative to the axis about which the impeller rotates) mountable to the aerial vehicle (fig. 4); and,
a retractable pump system to replenish the water tank with water, the retractable pump system including a collapsible hose (114) connected on a first end to a reversible, motorized reel (106/108) for deploying and retrieving the hose, and a submersible water pump (104) positioned on a second end of the hose for pumping water from a water source to the water tank (col. 7, ln. 60-64; figs. 5, 6).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have modified the method for fighting fires of Williamson in view of Mattson and Adamson to further include connecting a retractable pump system to replenish the water tank with water, the retractable pump system including a collapsible hose connected on a first end to a reversible, motorized reel for deploying and retrieving the hose, and a submersible water pump positioned on a second end of the hose for pumping water from a water source to the water tank, as taught by MacDonald. This would provide the apparatus with a means for replenishing the water supply from a natural body of water such as a lake or river (MacDonald, col. 7, ln. 48-49 and fig. 5).
Claims 6-9 and 12-13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williamson in view of Mattson, and further in view of MacDonald.
Regarding claim 6, Williamson in view of Mattson discloses the method for fighting fires described regarding claim 1. Williamson in view of Mattson does not disclose dispensing the pressurized air and liquid water/foam solution from an aimable boom toward the target.
MacDonald further teaches an aimable boom (60) supportable by the aerial vehicle (fig. 4), the aimable boom including a nozzle (66) configured to expel the pressurized air and liquid water/foam solution toward the target (col. 8, ln. 43-46).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have modified the method for fighting fires of Williamson in view of Mattson to further include dispensing the pressurized air and liquid water/foam solution from an aimable boom toward the target, as taught by MacDonald. This would provide the apparatus with a means for directing and controlling the discharge of the air and liquid water/foam.
Regarding claim 7, Williamson in view of Mattson and MacDonald discloses the method for fighting fires described regarding claim 6, and including configuring a foam concentrate-to-water ratio of the liquid water/foam solution dispensed from the aimable boom to be the same foam concentrate-to-water ratio of the liquid water/foam solution leaving the water tank (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Williamson in view of Mattson and MacDonald discloses the method for fighting fires described regarding claim 6, and MacDonald further teaches aiming the boom vertically within a range from horizontally to downwardly (col. 7, ln. 27-31). MacDonald does not explicitly teach aiming the boom downwardly 40 degrees.
MacDonald does, however, disclose that the boom is aimable downwardly from horizontal in order to control the discharge of air and liquid water/foam solution; therefore, the degree to which the boom is aimable upwardly and downwardly from horizontal is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the degree to which the boom is aimable will enable the air and liquid water/foam solution to be discharge over a wider range. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim were disclosed in the prior art by MacDonald, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the boom configured to be aimable 40 degrees downwardly. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 9, Williamson in view of Mattson and MacDonald discloses the method for fighting fires described regarding claim 6, and Mattson further teaches that the aerial vehicle is a rotorcraft and the boom is extended beyond an outer tip of a rotor of the rotorcraft (fig. 1; col. 4, ln. 23-27) to ensure that the stream of fire retardant discharged from the boom is unaffected by the downwash of the rotors (col. 4, ln. 33-36); however, Mattson does not specifically teach that the boom extends at least 1 meter past.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the boom of the fire suppression apparatus of MacDonald to extend beyond an outer tip of a rotor associated with the helicopter, as taught by Mattson, since this was known to ensure that the stream of fire retardant discharged from the boom is unaffected by the downwash of the rotors. Further, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the boom so that it extends at least 1 meter beyond the outer tip of a rotor of the helicopter, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Mattson teaches that the boom should extend past the outer tip of the rotor of the helicopter so that the stream of fire retardant discharged from the boom is unaffected by the downwash of the rotors; therefore, one of ordinary skill would determine the minimum amount that the boom must extend past the rotor to ensure this.
Regarding claim 12, Williamson in view of Mattson discloses the method for fighting fires described regarding claim 1. Williamson in view of Mattson does not disclose wherein the water/foam pump is supported on a flat upper surface of a base, and the base is cantileverly mounted to the water tank via a pair of brackets.
MacDonald teaches the fire suppression apparatus described above, and further wherein the water/foam pump is supported on a flat upper surface of a base, and the base is cantileverly mounted to the water tank via a pair of brackets (col. 6, ln. 66-68; fig. 1, 2 – element 37).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have modified the method of fighting fires of Williamson in view of Mattson to further support the water/foam pump on a flat upper surface of a base, and to mount the base cantileverly to the water tank via a pair of brackets, as taught by MacDonald, since this was a known arrangement for supporting the water/foam pump of a fire suppression apparatus.
Regarding claim 13, Williamson in view of Mattson and MacDonald discloses the method for fighting fires described regarding claim 12, and MacDonald further teaches providing a surface defining a plurality of recesses (fig. 1 – interpreted to be the holes shown in element 37) for reducing weight of the at least one of the brackets.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williamson in view of Mattson, and further in view of Laskaris (US 6,991,041).
Regarding claim 11, Williamson in view of Mattson disclose the method of fighting fires described regarding claim 1. Williamson in view of Mattson does not disclose pumping the foam concentrate from the foam tank to the water tank a foam pump.
Laskaris teaches a compressed air foam system used to mix water with foam and air to produce a fire retardant for firefighting purposes (col. 1: ln. 6-13) with a pump (12) with an air induction valve (60) connected to a suction end of the pump (col. 6: ln. 5-7) and a foam pump (14b) for pumping the foam from the foam tank (14a) to combine it with the water to form a liquid fire retardant (fig. 1; col. 5: ln. 11-13).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the fire suppression apparatus of Williamson in view of Mattson to pump the foam concentrate from the foam tank to the water tank with a foam pump, as taught by Laskaris, since this enables the apparatus to transfer the foam concentrate from the foam tank to combine it with the water to form a fire retardant, which would allow the helicopter to maneuver freely without affecting the flow of the foam into the water tank.
Regarding claim 20, Williamson in view of Mattson disclose the method of fighting fires described regarding claim 1, and Mattson further teaches an electronic controller (74) configured to control operation of the electric motor (col. 5, ln. 36-38). Williamson in view of Mattson does not disclose an electronic controllers configured to control operation of the air induction valve.
Laskaris teaches the system described regarding claim 11, and further including an electronic controller (20c) configured to control operation of the air induction valve (col. 9, ln. 36-40).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the fire suppression apparatus of Williamson in view of Mattson to further include an electronic controllers configured to control operation of the air induction valve, as taught by Laskaris, since this would allow the pilot to control operation of the air induction valve from the cockpit.
Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williamson in view of Mattson, and further in view of Bloch (“High-Speed Centrifugal Pumps”, Process Plant Machinery (2nd Edition), 1998).
Williamson in view of Mattson discloses the method for fighting fires described regarding claim 1. Williamson in view of Mattson does not disclose rotating the centrifugal pump at a rated speed of approximately 9400 rotations per minute and expelling the pressurized air and liquid water/foam solution at approximately 150 gpm.
Bloch teaches that centrifugal pumps that operate at high rotational speeds exceeding 9400 rotations per minute provide smaller, more compact and lightweight designs for a given service condition (p. 240, par. 7, 8).
Regarding the rated speed of the pump, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have included rotating the centrifugal pump at a rated speed of approximately 9400 rotations per minute in the fire suppression apparatus of Williamson in view of Mattson since it was known that this would allow the use of a smaller and more lightweight pump design.
Regarding the flow rate of the pump, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have expelled the pressurized air and liquid water/foam solution at approximately 150 gpm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the flow rate of the pump would affect the ability of the apparatus to extinguish a fire, and would have chosen a pump having the necessary flow rate to extinguish fires of a given size in a desired amount of time.
Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williamson in view of Mattson, and further in view of Peerless ("Pump Inducers”, Peerless Pump Company, July 2006).
Williamson in view of Mattson discloses the method for fighting fires described regarding claim 1. Williamson further discloses installing the water/foam pump inside the lowest point of the water tank (fig. 1). Williamson in view of Mattson does not disclose installing an anti-cavitation device mounted inside the water tank at a lowest point of the water tank.
Peerless teaches that a pump inducer installed at the intake of a pump prevents cavitation in the pump (p. 3, par. 1), which also prevents the associated drop in pump performance.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an anti-cavitation device in the fire suppression apparatus of Williamson in view of Mattson since this was known to prevent cavitation in the pump and the associated degradation in performance, as taught by Peerless. Moreover, including the pump inducer of Peerless at the pump intake will result in it being installed inside the lowest point of the water tank.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 16-18, 22, and 26-30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,333,379. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the recited limitations as set forth in claims 1-20 of the instant application are included in claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 16-18, 22, and 26-30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,333,379.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,981,150. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the recited limitations as set forth in claims 1-20 of the instant application are included in claims 1-11 and 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,981,150.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 10-13, 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,406,390. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the recited limitations as set forth in claims 1-20 of the instant application are included in claims 1, 2, 10-13, 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,406,390.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,369,392. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the recited limitations as set forth in claims 1-20 of the instant application are included in claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,369,392.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,369,392. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the recited limitations as set forth in claims 1-20 of the instant application are included in claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,439,852.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Williamson (US 3,846,515) both Yonehara (US 2007/0196207) teach fire suppression apparatuses having elements of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights