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 § 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 3, the limitation “adopts ammonium phosphate” is unclear. Is the agent itself ammonium phosphate? Does it contain ammonium phosphate? Is it entrained with ammonium phosphate? What are the limitations of the claims?
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependency from claim 1
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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20220000235) in view of Simpson (US 20060016608).
Regarding claim 1, Kim Figure 5 discloses an automatic fire extinguisher specially designed for electric bicycles, comprising:
a fire extinguisher bottle (1), and a fire extinguishing agent in the fire extinguisher bottle (Paragraph 36, powder fire extinguishing agent);
and a sealing plate (135) is fixedly arranged at a nozzle opening (Figure 5, the opening of 131) of the fire extinguisher bottle (Figures 1 and 5);
the sealing plate melts after being heated to a set temperature, and the fire extinguishing agent is sprayed out from the fire extinguisher bottle through the nozzle (Paragraph 12 discloses that the device operate by fluid being sprayed from the nozzle once the plate is melted; Paragraphs 62-63, The embodiment of Figure 5 operates by melting of the plate 135), but fails to disclose the fire extinguishing agent adopts ammonium phosphate dry powder.
Simpson discloses a device wherein a dry powder agent is ammonium phosphate (Paragraph 58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the disclosures of Simpson, providing the extinguishing material to be ammonium phosphate since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.
Regarding 3, Kim in view of Simpson discloses the automatic fire extinguisher specially designed for electric bicycles of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the sealing plate is 2 mm thick.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim in view of Simpson to have a the sealing plate being 2 mm thick since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kim in view of Simpson would not operate differently with the claimed thickness and since the plate is intended to have thickness, the device would function appropriately having the claimed thickness. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the thickness claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses in view of Simpson discloses the automatic fire extinguisher specially designed for electric bicycles of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the capacity of the fire extinguisher bottle is not less than 1 kg.
Numanaka discloses that the weight of an extinguisher bottle is a result effective variable, as the capacity of the bottle determines the coverage effectiveness of the device (Background Art, Fig. 15). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device to have an amount within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the amount of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device by making the capacity of the fire extinguisher bottle not less than 1 kg as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Simpson discloses the automatic fire extinguisher specially designed for electric bicycles of claim 1, wherein an outlet valve is installed at a mouth of the fire extinguisher bottle (Paragraph 11, an outlet valve is installed in the top of the cap at the mouth of the bottle for manual operation).
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Simpson discloses the automatic fire extinguisher specially designed for electric bicycles of claim 1, wherein a handle (5, 4) is arranged on a top of the fire extinguisher bottle (Figure 1).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Simpson and Lian (US20190168037).
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Simpson discloses the automatic fire extinguisher specially designed for electric bicycles of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the alloy of the sealing plate is made of a tin-bismuth alloy plate, tin is 52% and bismuth is 48%.
Lian discloses a device wherein an alloy of a fusible material is made of tin and bismuth (Paragraph 65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Simpson with the disclosures of Lian, providing the material to be made of tin and bismuth since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.
Lian discloses that the fusible material contains 58% bismuth and 42% tin. Lian also discloses that the amount of each material in a fusible element is optimized in order to provide for a desired performance and melting point (Paragraph 65). The amount of material is put forth as a result effective variable, as changing the amount of each element changes the performance of the fusible element. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device to have contents within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the amount of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device by making the tin-bismuth alloy plate to have tin is 52% and bismuth is 48% as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Simpson and Numanaka (JP 2008148986).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses in view of Simpson discloses the automatic fire extinguisher specially designed for electric bicycles of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the capacity of the fire extinguisher bottle is not less than 1 kg.
Numanaka discloses that the weight of an extinguisher bottle is a result effective variable, as the capacity of the bottle determines the coverage effectiveness of the device (Background Art, Fig. 15). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device to have an amount within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the amount of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device by making the capacity of the fire extinguisher bottle not less than 1 kg as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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 O. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights