DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/31/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the AI camera includes a processor configured to execute a trained neural network model, the model having been trained with labeled fire and non-fire image datasets, to detect whether a fire has occurred in an observed ignition point”. An AI camera is disclosed; however, no details of the AI camera, the type of model used, or the components of the camera are disclosed in the original disclosure, such that all details of the AI camera claimed are new matter because the limitations were not disclosed at the time the application was filed.
Claims 7, 8 and 10 are rejected based upon their dependency upon claim 6.
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.
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, 2, 4, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezra 2023/0124927 in view of Jeong KR 101059693 and Tan 7,066,273.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Ezra teaches a fire suppression system (1) for automatically tracking an ignition point (27), the system comprising: a fire extinguishing agent spraying module (5) comprising: a casing (40) installed to be rotatable in a horizontal direction in a monitoring target area (horizontal movement with horizontal gearbox 60, paragraph [0041]); and an ejection nozzle (55) installed on the casing to be pivotable in a vertical direction (vertical movement with vertical gearbox 50, paragraph [0040]) and configured to eject a fire extinguishing agent to a fire occurrence point in the monitoring target area (paragraph [0040]), an automatic ignition point tracking detection module disposed close to the ejection nozzle and configured to detect whether a fire has occurred in the monitoring target area and to calculate coordinates of an ignition point; (portions of 5 with thermal camera 25 and control system 10, where close is a relative term and 5 and 10 are both close to 55) and a controller (10) configured to rotate the casing and pivot the ejection nozzle based on the coordinates of the ignition point calculated by the automatic ignition point tracking detection module such that the ejection nozzle is directed toward the ignition point, and ejects the fire extinguishing agent to the ignition point (control steps for detection of flames are in figure 7A, and opening of closing of valve for ejecting extinguishing agent are in steps of figure 7B); and a thermal imaging camera (25) disposed close to the ejection nozzle (25 is close to 55 in figure 1) and configured to acquire a thermal image of the monitoring target area when the ejection nozzle is directed toward the ignition point by the controller (paragraph [0040]), to measure a temperature of the monitoring target area (paragraph [0040]), and to detect whether a fire has occurred in the monitoring target area based on the temperature (paragraph [0042]), wherein the ejection nozzle and the thermal imaging camera are spaced apparat and substantially parallel (paragraph [0040]), and move together while remaining substantially parallel when the ejection nozzle is pivoted (25 and 55 are mounted together and moved vertically with gearbox 50 and horizontally with gearbox 60). However, Ezra does not teach that the tracking module comprises ultraviolet and infrared sensors for detection of a fire. Jeong teaches a fire suppression system (figure 1) with an ejection nozzle (15), ultraviolet sensor (31) and infrared sensor (32) in addition to a thermal imaging sensor (34) and CCTV camera (33), to detect fire (last paragraph of page 3). Tan teaches using a fire suppression apparatus (figure 1b) with two IR sensors (30-1 through 30-n) and a nozzle (40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the ultraviolet and infrared sensors of Jeong in addition to the thermal imaging camera of Ezra to detect fire, as taught by Jeong, in order to detect a wide range of fire with the UV sensor and find the exact ignition point with the IR sensor (Second full paragraph of page 4). Ezra in view of Jeong does not teach using a second IR sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a two IR sensors as taught by Tan with the fire suppression system of Ezra in view of Jeong, in order to use IR sensors sensitive at different wavelengths to determine the temperature of the fire (Col. 11, ll. 18-20 of Tan).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Ezra in view of Jeong and Tan teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Ezra further teaches the casing is rotatable in the horizontal direction by a first driving motor (65) controlled by the controller (paragraph [0049]), wherein the ejection nozzle is pivotable in the vertical direction by a second driving motor (45) controlled by the controller (paragraph [0049]) and is configured to eject the fire extinguishing agent (paragraph [0049]), wherein the fire extinguishing agent spraying module further comprises: a fire extinguishing agent storage tank (70) connected to the ejection nozzle via a fire extinguishing agent supply line and configured to supply the fire extinguishing agent stored therein to the ejection nozzle via the fire extinguishing agent supply line (line exists between 70 and nozzles 55, paragraph [0080]); and an opening and closing valve (245) installed at the fire extinguishing agent supply line (paragraph [0073]), wherein when a fire occurrence signal is transmitted from the automatic ignition point tracking detection module to the controller, the opening and closing valve is configured to be opened by the controller such that the fire extinguishing agent stored in the fire extinguishing agent storage tank is fed to the ejection nozzle via the fire extinguishing agent supply line and then is ejected to the ignition point through the ejection nozzle (paragraph [0073]).
Regarding Dependent Claims 4 and 5, Ezra in view of Jeong and Tan teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Ezra further teaches when the casing and the ejection nozzle of the fire extinguishing agent spraying module are respectively rotated and pivoted based on the coordinates of the ignition point as calculated by the ignition point coordinate calculator such that the ejection nozzle is directed toward the ignition point (paragraph [0065] and figure 7A), the thermal imaging camera is configured to: acquire a thermal image of the ignition point (paragraph [0065]); and only upon determination that the temperature of the ignition point in the thermal image is higher than or equal to a threshold temperature, determine that the fire is a real fire, and transmit a fire extinguishing agent ejection signal to the controller (paragraph [0065] and steps in figure 7A). Ezra performs the steps for operating the thermal imaging camera and fire suppression nozzle regardless of other measurements of the system (figure 7A).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Ezra in view of Jeong and Tan teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Ezra in view of Jeong and Tan does not teach that wherein upon determination that a distance from the ejection nozzle to the ignition point is within a preset distance, the controller is configured to control the ejection nozzle to spray the fire extinguishing agent to the ignition point in a shower manner, wherein upon determination that the distance from the ejection nozzle to the ignition point is out of the preset distance, the controller is configured to control the ejection nozzle to eject the fire extinguishing agent to the ignition point in a shooting manner. Tan teaches that wherein upon determination that a distance from the ejection nozzle to the ignition point is within a preset distance (Col. 8, ll. 30-36, distance is determined from suppression apparatus), the controller is configured to control the ejection nozzle to spray the fire extinguishing agent to the ignition point in a shower manner (pressure is controlled based upon distance, Col. 8, ll. 30-36, wherein shower manner is a relative term to describe flow out of the nozzle, and Tan further teaches the type of flow from the nozzle can be controlled, Col. 11, ll. 34-42), wherein upon determination that the distance from the ejection nozzle to the ignition point is out of the preset distance, the controller is configured to control the ejection nozzle to eject the fire extinguishing agent to the ignition point in a shooting manner (Col. 8, ll. 30-36, pressure of spray pattern controlled based upon distance, wherein shooting manner is a relative term that does not limit the shape of the spray to a specific shape). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to control the pressure and flow type of the flow exiting the nozzle of Ezra in view of Jeong and Tan, as taught by Tan, in order to achieve maximum fire suppression of the fire (Col. 11, ll. 34-37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it is implied that the AI camera is implemented with a trained neural network model. None of the details of the AI camera in the instant claims are present in the original disclosure or claims. Applicant’s argument that AI cameras are conventionally trained using a neural network and images of fires is not evidence that applicant possessed the invention at the time of disclosure. Neural networks are not the only type of training AI can use for creation of a model. For example, AI models can also use a support vector machine for creating the model.
The 112f covers the “dust-proof means” of claim 10.
Applicant argues that Ezra fails to teach the limitation “the ejection nozzle and the thermal imaging camera are spaced apart and substantially parallel, and move together while remaining substantially parallel when the ejection nozzle is pivoted”. Ezra teaches an ejection nozzle (55) and thermal camera (25) that are substantially parallel (paragraph [0040]) and move together (vertical movement together, paragraph [0040], and horizontal movement together, paragraph [0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 (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 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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752