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 § 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.
Claim 10 contains the trademark/trade name WhatsApp and Telegram. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enk, SR. (US 2012/0168184).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15, Enk teaches an intelligent, independently-powered, modular fire extinguishing unit suitable for, although not limited to, retrofitting to existing infrastructures (Abstract and Para. [0043]), the unit comprising: at least one independently pressurized gas chamber (compressed gas tank 24; Para. [0033]; Fig. 1); at least one non-pressurized fire suppressant reservoir (first component tank 14; Fig. 1) arranged in flow communication with the pressurized gas chamber and containing a fire suppressant (Para. [0033]); a digital control module (control panel 58; Fig. 1) for actuating pressure release from the gas chamber into the fire suppressant reservoir to pressurize the fire suppressant (Para. [0043]); discharge means (mixing pipe/conduit 18, nozzles 20 and distribution conduits 50; Fig. 1) arranged in flow communication with the fire suppressant reservoir through which pressurized fire suppressant is discharged (Paras. [0042]); and a unit-dedicated on-site power supply source (power source 56; Fig. 1) for actuating the unit in the event of a fire (Para. [0043]).
Regarding Claim 2, Enk teaches the fire extinguishing unit according to claim 1 and Enk teaches of wherein the gas chamber, fire suppressant reservoir, digital control module, discharge means, and power supply source are removably connected to each other such that any one of these components are independently removable from the unit, serviced, refilled, and/or depressurized without compromising unit integrity or activating the unit (each of the components are connected by piping and wiring and therefore are removably connected and independently removable and the compressed gas tank 24 is the only pressurized component of the system and tank 24 can be isolated by shut off valve 28 so that all of the components can be removed without compromising unit integrity or activating the unit; Para. [0034]; Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Enk teaches the fire extinguishing unit according to claim 1 and Enk teaches of wherein specific volume of the pressurized gas chamber is tailored to specific volume of the fire suppressant reservoir, as well as to a particular fire suppressant being used; while volume of the fire suppressant reservoir is tailored to a potential site-specific fire load, a particular fire suppressant being used, and mounting weight limitations; the unit making it possible interchangeably and alternatingly to connect differently-sized gas chambers and fire suppressant reservoirs to each other depending on varying site-specific requirements (Paras. [0033], [0037] and [0044]).
Regarding Claim 4; Enk teaches the fire extinguishing unit according to claim 1 and Enk teaches of wherein the gas chamber is filled with compressed air, compressed nitrogen or a combination of compressed air and nitrogen (Para. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 13, Enk teaches the fire extinguishing unit according to claim 1 and Enk teaches of wherein the power supply source is a rechargeable, unit-dedicated battery that is connected to an electricity supply or a solar panel (Para. [0043]).
Regarding Claim 14, Enk teaches the fire extinguishing unit according to claim 1 wherein the unit includes a heat-resistant mounting cradle (exterior case 60; Para. [0044]; Figs. 2-6).
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.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enk, SR (US ‘184).
Regarding Claims 8, 11, and 12, Enk teaches the fire extinguishing unit according to claim 1 and Enk teaches of wherein the digital control module controls actuation of the unit through at least four levels of actuation, including heat-only automatic activation, heat- and digital- input automatic activation (Para. [0043]) and manual activation and deactivation as a stand-alone unit according to anyone of claims 1 to 4 (Para. [0040]). The manual deactivation can be done by either on a unit-specific based and the operation includes hard wired.
Enk fails to teach of manual activation and deactivation as an integrated system comprising a number of units.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a number of units in an integrated system, since a mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and this would allow a larger area to be covered without increasing the size of the components.
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Enk teaches the fire extinguishing unit according to claim 8 and Enk teaches of wherein the heat- only automatic activation provides actuation of the unit under detection of a heat signal (Para. [0043]).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Enk teaches the fire extinguishing unit according to claim 8 and Enk teaches of wherein the heat- and digital- input automatic activation provides actuation through heat cameras, infrared sensors or optical sensors designed to detect radiant energy emitted by burning or glowing particles such that the unit is automatically actuated in the event of such early detection, with a heat-only activation constituting an overriding automatic activation, the digital-input activation functionality further including signaling means for signaling unit activation, including LED lights, a sounding alarm, a SMS / WhatsApp message / push / telegram notifications to one or more dedicated receivers (Paras. [0043] and [0054]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enk, SR (US ‘184) in view of Stults (DE 23 32 793).
Regarding Claim 5, Enk teaches the fire extinguishing unit according to claim 1 but Enk fails to teach of wherein the unit further includes a water reservoir arranged in flow communication with both the pressurized gas chamber and the fire suppressant reservoir such that water from the water reservoir is mixed on-site and under pressure with compressed air foam in the fire suppressant reservoir to form a pressurized fire suppressant foam.
STULTS teaches a modular fire extinguishing unit (as shown in Fig. 1) and teaches of wherein the unit further includes a water reservoir (water tank 20; Fig. 1) arranged in flow communication with both a pressurized gas chamber (inert gas source 17; Fig. 1) and a fire suppressant reservoir (concentrate container 21; Fig. 1) such that water from the water reservoir is mixed on-site and under pressure with compressed air foam in the fire suppressant reservoir to form a pressurized fire suppressant foam and further teaches that the fire extinguishing device enables the creation of large foam areas at high speeds with only relatively low pressures being required to move the foam concentrate (Pg. 3, Lines 33-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use as the components of the two part foam of Enk water and foam concentrate as taught by STULTS in order to enable the creation of large foam areas at high speeds with only relatively low pressures being required to move the foam concentrate.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enk, SR (US ‘184) in view of DE 30 34 622.
Regarding Claim 6, Enk teaches the fire extinguishing unit according to claim 1 and Enk teaches of wherein the discharge means includes a activation and pressurization manifold (mixing pipe/conduit 18 and distribution conduits 50; Fig. 1) that terminates in a series of sprinklers (nozzles 20) for dispersing pressure-driven fire suppressant (Para. [0042]) Enk fails to teach of wherein the discharge means includes a foam generator.
DE ‘622 teaches a modular fire extinguishing unit (as shown in Figs. 1, 2; Pg. 1, Lines 19-21; note that Fig. 2 has the same parts corresponding to the parts of the device according to Fig. 1 being provided with the same reference numbers, each 100 higher; Pg. 3, Lines 24-25) and teaches of wherein a discharge means includes a foam generator and further teaches that the foam generator aids in the formation of foam (housing 16 and screen 18/118; Pg. 3, Lines 9-14 and 27-28; Figs. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the discharge means of Enk a foam generator as taught by DE ‘622 in order to improve the formation of foam.
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Enk teaches the fire extinguishing unit according to claim 6 but Enk fails to teach of wherein the foam generator includes a mixing chamber for receiving and mixing water, fire suppressant foam and pressurized air in predetermined ratios; and a mesh chamber for causing turbulent flow and cavitation to form the compressed fire suppressant foam before dispersing the pressurized foam to the manifold.
DE ‘622 teaches of wherein the foam generator includes a mixing chamber (lower half of housing 16 as shown in Fig. 1) for receiving and mixing water, fire suppressant foam and pressurized air in predetermined ratios; and a mesh chamber (upper half of housing 16 as shown in Fig. 1) for causing turbulent flow and cavitation to form the compressed fire suppressant foam before dispersing the pressurized foam to the manifold (Pg. 3, Lines 5-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the discharge means of Enk a foam generator as taught by DE ‘622 in order to improve the formation of foam.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Len Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-1184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am - 4pm.
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.
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.
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights