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 § 102
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) 1-3, 7-8, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steingass (US 7,367,361).
Regarding claim 1, Steingass discloses a fluid system for a fire apparatus, the fluid system comprising:
a water circuit (H);
an agent circuit (22) including an agent metering valve (20), the agent metering valve including a flow restrictor (54, 60) having a non-uniform profile (the profile is a ball and a stem); and a ratio controller (11) configured to (a) receive water from the water circuit and agent from the agent circuit and (b) provide an agent-water solution (Column 4, line 66-Column 5, lines 24).
Regarding claim 2, Steingass discloses the fluid system of Claim 1, wherein the ratio controller (11) includes a housing (Figure 4) defining a mixing chamber (12), the housing having:
a first inlet (13) configured to receive the water (Column 4, lines 26-27);
an outlet (15) configured to output the agent-water solution (Column 4, lines 54-57); and
a second inlet (49) positioned between the first inlet and the outlet (Figure 4), the second inlet extending through a sidewall of the housing to the mixing chamber (Figure 4), the second inlet configured to receive the agent and provide the agent to the mixing chamber (Column 4, lines 39-45).
Regarding claim 3, Steingass discloses the fluid system of Claim 2, wherein outlet is axially aligned with the first inlet (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Steingass discloses the fluid system of Claim 2, wherein the housing has:
a first pressure port (37) extending through the sidewall of the housing at a first position proximate the first inlet (Figure 4); and
a second pressure port (44) extending through the sidewall of the housing at a second position proximate the mixing chamber (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, Steingass discloses the fluid system of Claim 2, wherein the ratio controller includes a nozzle (37) and a diffuser (42), wherein at least one of the nozzle or the diffuser at least partially extends into the mixing chamber (Figure 4) such that a nozzle outlet of the nozzle and a diffuser inlet of the diffuser are spaced a distance that is less than a width of the mixing chamber (Figure 4).
Regarding claims 12, Steingass discloses the fluid system of Claim 1, wherein the flow restrictor includes a plunger (100, 85) including a plunger head (85) having the non-uniform profile (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, Steingass discloses the fluid system of Claim 12, wherein the non-uniform profile is V-shaped (Figure 5, the connection of two of the wings 87 form a v shaped profile).
Regarding claim 14, Steingass discloses the fluid system of Claim 13, wherein the non-uniform profile is V-shaped (Figure 5) with: a first angled wall portion extending linearly at a first angle; and a second angled wall portion extending linearly at a second angle different from the first angle (Figure 5, the top wing 87 extends at an angle relative to the y axis that differs from the angle of the right side wing 87).
Regarding claim 15, Steingass discloses the fluid system of Claim 1, wherein the agent metering valve (20) includes a body (Figure 4) defining an inlet (22), an outlet (outlet of 47), and a chamber (51) positioned between the inlet and the outlet (Figure 4), and wherein the inlet and the outlet are orientated substantially perpendicularly to each other (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 16, Steingass discloses the fluid system of Claim 15, wherein the flow restrictor is repositionable between a plurality of positions including (i) a fully-open position that permits a flow of the agent from the inlet to the outlet, (ii) a fully-closed position that restricts the flow of the agent between the inlet and the outlet, and (iii) a plurality of intermediate positions between the fully- open position and the fully-closed position that variably restrict the flow of the agent between the inlet and the outlet (Column 5, lines 16-20, the 6% ratio is interpreted as the fully open position).
Regarding claim 17, Steingass discloses the fluid system of Claim 16, further comprising a valve controller (25) configured to adjust a position of the flow restrictor between the plurality of positions to variably restrict the flow of the agent from the inlet to the outlet based on a water flow rate entering the ratio controller from the water circuit and a preselected agent-to-water ratio for the agent-water solution exiting the ratio controller (Column 5, lines 22-35).
Regarding claim 18, Steingass discloses the fluid system of Claim 15, wherein the agent metering valve includes a check valve (85) positioned between the inlet and the outlet (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 19, Steingass discloses a fluid system for a fire apparatus, the fluid system comprising: a water circuit (13);
an agent circuit (20) including an agent metering valve (54), the agent metering valve having a ninety-degree flow path (Figure 4, Into 22 and out of 47) and including an integrated check valve (85); and a ratio controller (11) configured to (a) receive water from the water circuit and agent from the agent circuit and (b) provide an agent-water solution (Column 4, line 66-Column 5, line 24).
Regarding claim 20, Steingass discloses a fluid system for a fire apparatus, the fluid system comprising:
a water circuit (13);
an agent circuit (20) including an agent metering valve (54) ; and
a ratio controller (11) configured to (a) receive water from the water circuit and agent from the agent circuit and (b) provide an agent-water solution, wherein the ratio controller has a unitary structure (Column 4, line 66-Column 5, line 24).
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 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 5,167,285) in view of Steingass (US 7,367,361).
Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses a fluid system for a fire apparatus, the fluid system comprising:
a water circuit (supply of L);
an agent circuit (supply of F); and a ratio controller (B) configured to (a) receive water from the water circuit and agent from the agent circuit and (b) provide an agent-water solution (Column 4, lines 20-32), but fails to disclose the apparatus including an agent metering valve, the agent metering valve including a flow restrictor having a non-uniform profile.
Steingass discloses an improved system that includes an agent metering valve (20), the agent metering valve including a flow restrictor (54) having a non-uniform profile (The flow restrictor has orifices of varying sizes).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Williams with the disclosures of Steingass, providing the supply of F to include including an agent metering valve (Steingass, 20), the agent metering valve including a flow restrictor (Steingass, 54) having a non-uniform profile (The flow restrictor has orifices of varying sizes), in order to provide for the ability to optimize foam consumption, and provide appropriate use for varying classes of foams, as disclosed by Steingass (Column 5, lines 11-21).
Regarding claim 2, Williams in view of Steingass discloses the fluid system of Claim 1, wherein the ratio controller (B) includes a housing (Figure 1) defining a mixing chamber (70), the housing having:
a first inlet (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) configured to receive the water (Figure 1, the inlet receives the liquid L1);
an outlet (OA) configured to output the agent-water solution (Column 4, lines 39-41); and
a second inlet positioned between the first inlet and the outlet (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), the second inlet extending through a sidewall of the housing to the mixing chamber (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), the second inlet configured to receive the agent and provide the agent to the mixing chamber (Column 4, lines 27-29).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 4, Williams in view of Steingass discloses the fluid system of Claim 2, wherein the second inlet is a first agent port (Foam is supplied through the second inlet), wherein the housing has a second agent port (66) positioned between the first inlet and the outlet (Figure 1) and (b) peripherally offset from the first agent port (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Williams in view of Steingass discloses the fluid system of Claim 4, wherein the first agent port and the second agent port protrude radially outward from an exterior surface of the housing (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Williams in view of Steingass discloses the fluid system of Claim 4, wherein the first agent port and the second agent port are positioned on opposing sides of the mixing chamber (Figure 1).
Claim(s) 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steingass (US 7,367,361).
Regarding claims 9-11, Steingass discloses the fluid system of Claim 1, wherein the flow restrictor includes a ball having the non-uniform profile (Figure 4), but fails to disclose the non-uniform profile providing an elongated notch extending at least partially along a periphery of the ball, the elongated notch including a first end having a first size and a second end having a second size greater than the first size such that the elongated notch tapers between the first end and the second end.
The ball includes a notch (openings) extending partially around a periphery of the ball, but fails to disclose the notch having a shape that is elongated including a first end having a first size and a second end having a second size greater than the first size such that the elongated notch tapers between the first end and the second end;
As to claim 10, wherein the elongated notch has a linearly tapered profile.
As to claim 11, wherein the elongated notch has a non-linear tapered profile.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the notch shaped as claimed since it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 7-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 13, 18, 19, 20 of U.S. Patent No 11185728. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite the same essential subject matter with minor adjustments in the claim language.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No 11813489.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite the same essential subject matter with minor adjustments in the claim language.
Claims 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No 11813489.
‘489 discloses the device of claim 6, but fails to disclose the ports arranged on opposite sides of the mixing chamber. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the ports as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
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