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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on August 14, 2026. Claims 1, 11, and 13-15 have been amended. Claims 10, 12, and 16-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-27 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 26-27 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 26 recites “a nozzle that extends from the tank and that includes an end through which the extinguishing agent is expelled; a shroud that extends around and encloses the tank; and a trigger that extends through the shroud and is connected to the fire extinguisher to selectively expel the extinguishing agent through the nozzle; sensors configured to detect one or more aspects of the fire extinguisher” that would require a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 26 and 27 are being withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-6, 8-9, 11, 14-15, and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudak et al. (US 2014/0231109 A1) in view of Rousseau et al. (US 11,383,115 B1).
With regard to claim 1, Hudak discloses a fire extinguisher assembly (10) comprising: a shroud (12) that comprises an enclosed interior space (Fig. 5); a fire extinguisher positioned within the interior space of the shroud (Fig. 6), the fire extinguisher comprising: a tank (14) configured to contain extinguishing agent (16); a nozzle (18) that extends from the tank through which the extinguishing agent is expelled (Fig. 6), the nozzle extending outward from the interior space of the shroud (Fig. 6); and a trigger (20) positioned on an exterior of the shroud (12), the trigger connected to the fire extinguisher to selectively expel the extinguishing agent through the nozzle (18 and Par. [0036-0037]).
Hudak does not disclose the shroud comprising first electrical contacts that are exposed on an exterior of the shroud; a docking station comprising: a base with a receptacle sized to receive the shroud; second electrical contacts positioned at the receptacle and configured to contact against the first electrical contacts when the shroud is positioned in the receptacle a plug configured to connect to an electrical supply; a control unit positioned within the base of the docking station, the control unit comprising: processing circuitry configured to monitor a status of the fire extinguisher; and communications circuitry configured to wirelessly communicate with a remote node.
Rousseau teaches a fire extinguisher assembly comprising a shroud comprising first electrical contacts (139) that are exposed on an exterior of the shroud (Col. 11 lines 2-4); a docking station (130) comprising: a base (148) with a receptacle sized to receive the shroud (Fig. 5); second electrical contacts (136) positioned at the receptacle and configured to contact against the first electrical contacts when the shroud is positioned in the receptacle a plug configured to connect to an electrical supply (Col. 11 lines 1-5 and Fig. 6); a control unit (140) positioned within the base of the docking station (Fig. 5), the control unit comprising: processing circuitry configured to monitor a status of the fire extinguisher (Col. 15 lines 52-56); and communications circuitry configured to wirelessly communicate with a remote node (147 and Col. 16 line 43 – Col. 17 line 19).
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 fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak, by employing the first electrical contacts on the shroud and the docketing station with the second electrical contacts and the control unit as taught by Rousseau, doing it would allow both the fire extinguisher and the control unit can be powered by an electrical supply (Col. 14 lines 29-35).
With regard to claim 2, the fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hudak further discloses that an actuation assembly positioned within the interior space and connected to the tank, the actuation assembly comprising a stem that is biased by a spring to a closed position (Par. [0059] “If the actuator 20 is a manual, biased mechanism the user may then continually activate the actuator 20 while aiming the discharge port 18 at the fire. If the actuator 20 is a manual latching mechanism (with or without a time delay element) the user may activate the actuator 20 and then may aim discharge port 18 at the fire or toss or throw the fire extinguisher 10 into the fire. If the actuator 20 is automatic, in the event of a fire being detected, the actuator 20 may automatically be activated to cause the fire suppression agent 16 to flow from the discharge port 18” and Par. [0068]).
With regard to claim 3, the fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hudak further discloses that the trigger is operatively connected to the actuation assembly and movable between a first position and a second position, the first position locating the stem to prevent the extinguishing agent from moving through the nozzle (“off” position), the second position locating the stem to enable the extinguishing agent to move through the nozzle (“on” position, Par. [0068]).
With regard to claim 4, the fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hudak further discloses that a light (28) connected to the shroud at a light opening (Fig. 3), the light configured to illuminate and be visible on an exterior of the shroud (Par. [0053]).
With regard to claim 5, the fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4 above. Hudak further discloses that each of the light, the trigger, and the nozzle are aligned along a common vertical line of the shroud (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 6, the fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hudak further discloses that the shroud (12) comprises a top, a bottom, and sidewalls that extend around and form the interior space (Fig. 6), wherein at least one of the top and the bottom are solid (both top and bottom of shroud 12 are solid housing).
With regard to claim 8, the fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hudak further discloses that the tank (14) is completely enclosed within the interior space and is visually obscured from an exterior of the shroud (Figs. 1-4).
With regard to claim 9, the fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hudak further discloses that the shroud (12) comprises multiple sections that are connected together and form the enclosed interior space (Figs. 1-4).
With regard to claim 11, the fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hudak further discloses that at least one battery positioned within the interior space, the at least one battery configured to power a light that is connected to the shroud (26, Par. [0057]).
With regard to claim 14, Hudak in view of Rousseau discloses a fire extinguisher assembly comprising: a fire extinguisher comprising: a tank (14) configured to contain extinguishing agent (16); a nozzle (18) that extends from the tank and that includes an end through which the extinguishing agent is expelled (Fig. 6); a shroud (12) that extends around and completely encloses the tank (Fig. 6); and a trigger (20) that extends through the shroud and is connected to the fire extinguisher to selectively expel the extinguishing agent through the nozzle (18 and Par. [0036-0037]); a docking station (130) comprising: a base (148); a receptacle in the base with the receptacle sized to receive a bottom of the shroud (Figs. 1 and 5); a control unit (140) positioned within the base of the docking station (Fig. 5), the control unit comprising: processing circuitry configured to determine a status of the fire extinguisher comprising: a pressure within the tank; whether the fire extinguisher has been actuated; whether the fire extinguisher is positioned in the receptacle (Col. 15 lines 52-56 and Fig. 6); and communications circuitry configured to wirelessly communicate the status to a remote node (147 and Col. 16 line 43 – Col. 17 line 19).
With regard to claim 15, the fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14 above. Hudak further discloses that a light (28) mounted to the shroud and visible on an exterior of the shroud (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 21, the fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14 above. Rousseau further discloses that the remote node comprises a server configured to determine the pressure within the tank and whether the fire extinguisher has been actuated (Col. 15 lines 52-56 and Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 22, the fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14 above. Rousseau further discloses that the remote node comprises a server configured to determine whether the fire extinguisher is positioned in the docking station (Col. 15 lines 52-56 and Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 23, the fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14 above. Rousseau further discloses that the communications circuitry is further configured to receive a request from the remote node for the status of the fire extinguisher (Col. 15 lines 52-56 and Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 24, the fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14 above. Rousseau further discloses that the communications circuitry is configured to periodically transmit the status of the fire extinguisher to the remote node (Col. 15 lines 52-56 and Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 25, the fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14 above. Rousseau further discloses that the communications circuitry is configured to transmit a signal to the remote node in response to the fire extinguisher being removed from the docking station (Col. 15 lines 52-56 and Fig. 6).
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, 14-15, and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20120118110 A) in view of Rousseau et al. (US 11,383,115 B1).
With regard to claim 1, Kim discloses a fire extinguisher assembly (Fig, 1) comprising: a shroud (1, Fig. 3) that comprises an enclosed interior space (Fig.3); the shroud comprising first electrical contacts (45) that are exposed on an exterior of the shroud; a fire extinguisher positioned within the interior space of the shroud (Fig. 3), the fire extinguisher comprising: a tank (50) configured to contain extinguishing agent; a nozzle (80) that extends from the tank through which the extinguishing agent is expelled (Fig. 3), the nozzle extending outward from the interior space of the shroud (Fig. 3); and a trigger (70) positioned on an exterior of the shroud (Fig. 3), the trigger connected to the fire extinguisher to selectively expel the extinguishing agent through the nozzle (Fig. 3); a docking station (100) comprising: a base with a receptacle sized to receive the shroud (Fig. 3); second electrical contacts (120) positioned at the receptacle and configured to contact against the first electrical contacts (45) when the shroud is positioned in the receptacle a plug configured to connect to an electrical supply
Kim does not disclose; a docking station comprising: a base with a receptacle sized to receive the shroud; a control unit positioned within the base of the docking station, the control unit comprising: processing circuitry configured to monitor a status of the fire extinguisher; and communications circuitry configured to wirelessly communicate with a remote node.
Rousseau teaches a fire extinguisher assembly comprising a shroud comprising first electrical contacts (139) that are exposed on an exterior of the shroud (Col. 11 lines 2-4); a docking station (130) comprising: a base (148) with a receptacle sized to receive the shroud (Fig. 5); second electrical contacts (136) positioned at the receptacle and configured to contact against the first electrical contacts when the shroud is positioned in the receptacle a plug configured to connect to an electrical supply (Col. 11 lines 1-5 and Fig. 6); a control unit (140) positioned within the base of the docking station (Fig. 5), the control unit comprising: processing circuitry configured to monitor a status of the fire extinguisher (Col. 15 lines 52-56); and communications circuitry configured to wirelessly communicate with a remote node (147 and Col. 16 line 43 – Col. 17 line 19).
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 fire extinguisher assembly of Kim, by employing the first electrical contacts on the shroud and the docketing station with the second electrical contacts and the control unit as taught by Rousseau, since the modification is just shifting the position of the electrical contacts on the base and shroud, which would not have modified the operation of the device (See MPEP 2144.04).
With regard to claims 2-6, 8-9, 14-15 and 21-25, the fire extinguisher assembly of Kim as modified by Rousseau discloses all the features recited in the claims.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudak in view Rousseau as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Hardge (US 6,202,755 B1).
With regard to claim 7, the fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hudak does not disclose that the fire extinguisher assembly weights between 2-8 pounds.
Hardge teaches a fire extinguisher assembly weights between 2-8 pounds (Col. 3 line 32).
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 fire extinguisher of Hudak, by employing the five pound extinguisher as taught by Hardge, for the benefit of providing a light weight extinguisher for adults and children.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudak in view Rousseau as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Deng et al. (CN 102974064).
With regard to claim 13, the fire extinguisher assembly of Hudak as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. They don not disclose the docking station is configured to supply 5VDC power.
Deng teaches a fire extinguisher assembly has supply 5VDC power (Claim 5).
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 fire extinguisher of Hudak, by employing the supply 5VDC power as taught by Deng, since 5V power supply is working power supply.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view Rousseau as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Hardge (US 6,202,755 B1).
With regard to claim 7, the fire extinguisher assembly of Kim as modified by Rousseau discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kim does not disclose that the fire extinguisher assembly weights between 2-8 pounds.
Hardge teaches a fire extinguisher assembly weights between 2-8 pounds (Col. 3 line 32).
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 fire extinguisher of Kim, by employing the five pound extinguisher as taught by Hardge, for the benefit of providing a light weight extinguisher for adults and children.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view Rousseau as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Deng et al. (CN 102974064).
With regard to claim 13, the fire extinguisher assembly of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 12 above. They do not disclose that the docking station is configured supply 5VDC power.
Deng teaches a fire extinguisher assembly has supply 5VDC power (Claim 5).
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 fire extinguisher of Kim, by employing the supply 5VDC power as taught by Deng, since 5V power supply is working power supply.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
