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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 4, 8-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are original. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 12 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The amendment filed on 10/14/2025 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the following:
Certain drawing objections
Existing claim objections
Certain 112(b) rejections
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
A water source [Claim 1]
A zone of protection [Claim 7]
Wherein three or more of the sprinkler tower systems is located near a roadway in the community of structures, a structure and an open space in the community of structure [Claim 20]
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation "intergral'' in lines 11 of claim 1. However, it is suggested to amend to - integral-. Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 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.
Claim 1 is 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 1 has been amended to recite “wherein each EFMS comprises … a water source, the water source in fluid communication with the manifold” in lines 3-5 of claim 1. However, Para. 00135 recites “The EFMS 1800 has a power back up 1801, a controller 1804, a foam system 1802 and a foam tank 1803. Water from a water source, e.g., city water, public utility water is connected via a pipe to a tie- in unit 1806, that is in fluid communication with the foam system 1802. Water or a water-foam mix is flowed through a pipe from the tie-in unit 1806 to a first manifold 1805b and a second manifold 1805a” and Para. 00218 recites “The EFMS 1800 has a power back up 1801, a controller 1804, a foam system 1802 and a foam tank 1803. Water from a water source, e.g., city water, public utility water is connected via a pipe to a tie-in unit 1806, that is in fluid communication with the foam system 1802. Water or a water-foam mix is flowed through a pipe from the tie-in unit 1806 to a first manifold 1805b and a second manifold 1805a.,” and while the specification states that the EFMS is connected to a water source it does not disclose “wherein each EFMS comprises … a water source, the water source in fluid communication with the manifold.” Additionally, the examiner could not find any drawings with a water source.
Therefore, this limitation is new matter that 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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.
Claims 7 and 20 are 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.
The term “near” on line 2 of claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if 1 meter, 10 meters, or 1,000 meters would be considered near something. Similar rejection applies to claim 20.
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 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavit (US 2023/0211194) in view of Hut (US 12,064,655).
Regarding claim 1, Shavit discloses a coordinated wildfire management system for the protection of a community of structures, the system comprising:
a plurality of external fire management systems (EFMSs) [Fig. 1 & Fig. 2, 200 except for 202 shown as 204 in Fig. 7; Para. 0045 – “FIG. 7 illustrates, by circles, the coverage of water 204 for each of the endpoints 200.”], wherein each EFMS comprises a local controller (Fig. 1-2, 201), a water source (Annotated Fig. 1; The water cluster network is a water source for each EFMS as described in Para. 0027 and 0029; Para. 0029 – “the water gun 263 is connected to the cluster water network 443 by a dedicated pipe 261”; 0027 – “A COFD cluster 100 is a neighborhood of such endpoints that share a common water supply network, indicated as a cluster water network 443. The cluster water network 443 is assumed to be able to supply a limited water flow, at a pressure level that is dependent on the flow rate of water provided to the given COFD cluster 100.”), the water source in fluid communication with a manifold (Annotated Fig. 1), and the manifold in fluid communication with a sprinkler head (Fig. 1-2, 263);
a plurality of structures (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2, 202; Para. 0044 – “Houses or buildings (or other types of water gun platforms) are indicated as buildings 202.”) ; wherein the plurality of define an area for the community of structures (Fig. 6 – 100A, 100B, 100C, and 100D; Para. 0044 – “FIGS. 6-7 depict maps showing aspects of an exemplary community 400 protected by a COFD system.”; Para. 0045 – “FIG. 7 illustrates, by circles, the coverage of water 204 for each of the endpoints 200.”);
wherein more than half of the structures have one of the plurality of EFMS’s (Fig. 7 shows 47 EFMS’s by showing the coverage (204) of each water gun (263) where the water guns are shown as part of the EFMS in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 and shows 86 structures denoted by rectangles filled with black dots which is 54 percent of structures.) whereby each EFMS is intergral with each such structure having one of the plurality of EFMSs (Para. 0028 – “a water gun 263, as described above, which is typically mounted to a roof of a building or platform 202”; Merriam Webster defines integral “formed as a unit with another part” and thus when and thus when the sprinkler head (263) is mounted to the structure which is part of the EFMS the EFMS is integral with the structure.);
wherein the plurality of EFMSs are in control communication with a network (Fig. 1, 20 except for 200)(Para. 0032 – “an endpoint controller 201, connects the water gun valve 262 to a COFD local system controller 110. The COFD local system controller 110 may in turn be connected to the COFD operations controller 500, which may be located remotely.”);
a monitoring device (Fig. 1 & Fig. 3, 310) in communication with the network (Fig. 1 shows the monitoring device as part of the network and thus communicating.); wherein the monitoring device can monitor a wildfire event and provide information about the wildfire event to the network (Para. 0041 – “These sensors, like other sensors of the system, connect to system controllers (such as controllers 201 or 110, or operations controller 500) by wireless or wired means”);
a control system (Fig. 1, {110, 500, 600, 700}) in control communication with the network (Fig. 1 shows the control system as part of the network and thus communicating and items 110 and 500 are controllers and thus in control communication with the network.);
wherein each of the EFMSs is in control communication with the control system (Para. 0032 – “an endpoint controller 201, connects the water gun valve 262 to a COFD local system controller 110. The COFD local system controller 110 may in turn be connected to the COFD operations controller 500, which may be located remotely.”);
the control system comprising a hydration plan (Fig. 11 shows a hydration plan with a combination of different duty cycles for different EFMS’s) and configured to implement the hydration plan; wherein the hydration plan provides for using a minimum amount of water needed to protect the area from a wildfire threat (Para. 0026 – “The COFD system protects a community 400 (also referred to herein as a “local system”) that is supplied by a water distribution system (WDS) 442”; Para. 0027 – “The COFD local system 400 may include multiple clusters, which may be treated independently for the purpose of water distribution planning, as long as the total supply limitation of each cluster does not exceed the supply limitation of the WDS.”; Para. 0047 – “a process for determining the number of guns that may be operated simultaneously and for allocating water to all water guns in an intermittent manner. The allocation is based on determining operating duty cycles for the water guns and scheduling the duty cycles according to time slots”); thereby preventing an ignition of the structures (Para. 0050 – “The early operation irrigates the areas to be defended, improving the resistance of trees, gardens, and structures to ignition. The “initial” mode can be modified as the area becomes sufficiently drenched with water to provide fire resistance.”; Providing water in this manner provides for using a minimum amount of water needed to protect the area from a wildfire threat).
Shavit does not disclose a plurality of sprinkler heads.
However, Hut teaches a prior art comparable device (Fig. 1, 2) comprising plurality of sprinkler heads (Figure, {24, 26, 28, 30}))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element (a plurality of sprinkler heads) with a known function (spraying extinguishing agent at a source of fire {Col. 1: Ln. 60-61}), taught by Hut, by performing a simple substitution with another element (sprinkler head) disclosed by Shavit yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a plurality of sprinkler heads) as taught by Hut, into the system disclosed by Shavit to provide a redundant sprinkler head in the case that one of the sprinkler heads malfunctions and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
622
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Shavit in view of Hut teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein at least 90 percent of the structures in the plurality of structures has one of the plurality of EFMSs.
However, Shavit discloses 54 percent of structures have an external fire management system (Fig. 7 shows 47 EFMS by showing the coverage (204) of each water gun (263) where the water guns are shown as part of the EFMS in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 and shows 86 structures denoted by rectangles filled with black dots.; Para. 0028 – “Typically, the location of the water gun is determined as the center of an area (e.g., a commercial or residential lot) including a building and its surrounding area.”) and further discloses that the coverage of the water at the endpoints “reduces the chance of fires being ignited by sparks (i.e., airborne embers) that can travel in the wind from the fire and can land behind buildings that face a fire” (Para. 0045) and that the fire hazard area for this community is denoted as 471 which is shown in Fig. 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein at least 90 percent of the structures in the plurality of structures has one of the plurality of EFMSs with a reasonable expectation of success, namely providing more water coverage to the community of structures.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein at least 90 percent of the structures in the plurality of structures has one of the plurality of EFMSs, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value (of the structures having an external fire management system) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality at least 90 percent of the structures in the plurality of structures has one of the plurality of EFMSs (Para. 0016), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Shavit in view of Hut teaches the system of claim 1.
Shavit further discloses the system further comprising: a sprinkler tower system (Fig 1 & 2, 200; Fig 1 & 2 shows 263 mounted to 202 where 202 can be a platform (tower), and a platform (tower) is also a structure.; Para. 0044 – “Each endpoint 200 includes a water gun 263, as described above, which is typically mounted to a roof of a building or platform 202”; Para. 0044 –“ Houses or buildings (or other types of water gun platforms) are indicated as buildings 202.);
Shavit does not explicitly disclose which of the EFMS’s are mounted to a building vs a platform and subsequently wherein the sprinkler tower system is located near a roadway in the community of structures and at least one of the structures in the community of structures; wherein the sprinkler tower system provides a zone of protection; whereby the zone of protection includes both a portion of the roadway and a portion of one or more of the structures; whereby the sprinkler tower system provides protection from wildfires to both the roadway. thereby providing a safe evaluation route, and to the portion of the structure.
Shavit does teach EFMS’s which can be a sprinkler tower provides a zone of protection (Fig. 7, 204); whereby the zone of protection includes both a portion of the roadway and a portion of one or more of the structures (Annotated Fig. 7); whereby the sprinkler tower system provides protection from wildfires to both the roadway thereby providing a safe evaluation route (Annotated Fig. 7), and to the portion of the structure (Annotated Fig. 7).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a platform (tower) where a building was not present or to use a tower next to a building such the center of a commercial or residential lot (Para. 0028) and with a reasonable expectation of success to provide fire suppression to areas where a building is not present or a platform (tower) is desired.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image2.png
642
561
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Shavit in view of Hut teaches the system of claim 1.
Shavit further discloses the system comprising sprinkler tower systems (Fig 1 & 2, 200; Fig 1 & 2 shows 263 mounted to 202 where 202 can be a platform (tower), and a platform (tower) is also a structure.; Para. 0044 – “Each endpoint 200 includes a water gun 263, as described above, which is typically mounted to a roof of a building or platform 202”; Para. 0044 –“ Houses or buildings (or other types of water gun platforms) are indicated as buildings 202.); wherein the sprinkler tower systems are in control communication with the control system (Para. 0032 – “an endpoint controller 201, connects the water gun valve 262 to a COFD local system controller 110. The COFD local system controller 110 may in turn be connected to the COFD operations controller 500, which may be located remotely.”); and, delivery of water from the sprinkler tower systems is a part of the hydration plan (The sprinkler tower systems are EMFS’s (endpoints) which are part of the hydration plan as seen in Fig. 11).
Shavit does not explicitly disclose which of the EFMS’s are mounted to a building vs a platform and subsequently a plurality of sprinkler tower systems.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of platform (tower), and thus a plurality of sprinkler tower systems, where a building was not present or to use a tower next to a building such the center of a commercial or residential lot (Para. 0028) and with a reasonable expectation of success to provide fire suppression to areas where a building is not present or a platform (tower) is desired.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavit in view of Hut, and McDonald (US 2024/0075329).
Regarding claim 2, Shavit in view of Hut teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the hydration plan comprises: providing less than 1 inch of water per 24 hour period to a home ignition zone; wherein the home ignition zone is adjacent to at least one of the structures and extends out from the structure by about 5 feet to 30 feet.
However, McDonald teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “Automated Structure And Curtilage Protection System”) providing water to a home ignition zone (Fig. 1C shows the deployment points (105) spraying a spray radius (178) in the home ignition zone as described in Para. 0085 and further describes dividing the curtilage into zones such as the home ignition zone to position the deployment points.); wherein the home ignition zone is adjacent to at least one of the structures and extends out from the structure by about 5 feet to 30 feet (Fig. 1C, 141; Para. 0085 – “a first zone 141 may be between the structure 135 and within 5-feet therefrom. A second zone 142 may be between the end of the first zone 141 and within 30-feet therefrom.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (providing water to the home ignition zone) as taught by McDonald, into the system disclosed by Shavit in view of Hut to assist with how and where to position the deployment points (Para. 0085) and yielding the predictable result of providing water to the home ignition zone.
Shavit in view of McDonald teaches the claimed invention except for providing less than 1 inch of water per 24 hour period to a home ignition zone. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include providing less than 1 inch of water per 24 hour period to a home ignition zone, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value (of water to be sprayed) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of providing less than 1 inch of water per 24 hour period to a home ignition zone (Para. 00108 recites “For example, about 43 gallons/100 sq ft (e.g., 62 inches of water) can be used to keep these materials saturated, under certain conditions. However, it is preferred to have a safety factor and thus use 62 gal/100 sq ft (e.g., 1 inch of water) By saturating these materials, as well as, other materials, their ignition point is raised, i.e., it takes more energy for them to ignite. It requires about 65.9 MJ/m2 to heat and evaporate 1 inch of water. Thus, when these materials are saturated their ignition points are above the energy from an ember attack, and thus the amber attack will not ignite them. For example, saturated pine wood has an ignition point of 62.6 MJ/m2, which is well above the 52.2 MJ/m2 from a typical amber attack Moreover, if the area surrounding the structure is saturated, any spot fires that may occur should be self- extinguishing,” which describes a preference of using 1 inch of water, but does not describe this in any time domain and does not disclose any novel or unexpected results that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not know.), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Shavit in view of Hut teaches and McDonald teaches the system of claim 2.
Shavit further discloses wherein each of the EFMSs has a water supply line (Fig. 2, 443); wherein the EFMSs have an infeed line (Fig. 2, 261)) that provides a source of water from the water supply line (Para. 0029 – “the water gun 263 is connected to the cluster water network 443 by a dedicated pipe 261”).
Shavit in view of McDonald does not teach wherein all of the structures in the plurality of structures has one of the plurality of EFMSs.
However, Shavit discloses 54 percent of structures have an external fire management system (Fig. 7 shows 47 EFMS by showing the coverage (204) of each water gun (263) where the water guns are shown as part of the EFMS in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 and shows 86 structures denoted by rectangles filled with black dots.; Para. 0028 – “Typically, the location of the water gun is determined as the center of an area (e.g., a commercial or residential lot) including a building and its surrounding area.”) and further discloses that the coverage of the water at the endpoints “reduces the chance of fires being ignited by sparks (i.e., airborne embers) that can travel in the wind from the fire and can land behind buildings that face a fire” (Para. 0045) and that the fire hazard area for this community is denoted as 471 which is shown in Fig. 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein all of the structures have an external fire management system, with a reasonable expectation of success, namely providing more water coverage to the community of structures.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein all of the structures have an external fire management system, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value (of the structures having an external fire management system) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of all of the structures have an external fire management system (Para. 0016 does not describe any significance to all of the structures in the plurality of structures has one of the plurality of EFMSs and Para. 0042 recites that “not all of the structures in the community (e.g., the defined area) need to have EFMSs.”), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Shavit in view of Hut teaches and McDonald teaches the system of claim 3.
Shavit further teaches wherein the EFMSs are not connected to, and do not use a municipal fire hydrant system as a source of water (Para. 0044 – “The community receives water from the WDS 442, described above, which may for example, receive water from a regional water reservoir 441 or other large water storage tank.”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavit in view of Hut, McDonald and Kulanda (US 2022/0370842).
Regarding claim 5, Shavit in view of Hut teaches the system of claim 1.
Shavit further discloses wherein the hydration plan comprises: providing a sufficient amount of water (Para. 0050 – “The early operation irrigates the areas to be defended, improving the resistance of trees, gardens, and structures to ignition. The “initial” mode can be modified as the area becomes sufficiently drenched with water to provide fire resistance.”) over a predetermined time period (Para. 0048 – “A second parameter of risk is the expected “time to impact” (TTI) typically meaning the time for the fire to reach the community in a worst case scenario.”).
Shavit does not disclose wherein providing the sufficient amount of water over the predetermined time to a home ignition zone to maintain a level of hydration in the home ignition zone at a fuel moisture content that is from about 100 percent to about 300% during the predetermined time period; wherein the home ignition zone is adjacent to at least one of the structures and extends out from the structure from about 5 feet to 30 feet.
However, McDonald teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “Automated Structure And Curtilage Protection System”) providing water to a home ignition zone (Fig. 1C shows the deployment points (105) spraying a spray radius (178) in the home ignition zone as described in Para. 0085 and further describes dividing the curtilage into zones such as the home ignition zone to position the deployment points.); wherein the home ignition zone is adjacent to at least one of the structures and extends out from the structure by about 5 feet to 30 feet (Fig. 1C, 141; Para. 0085 – “a first zone 141 may be between the structure 135 and within 5-feet therefrom. A second zone 142 may be between the end of the first zone 141 and within 30-feet therefrom.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (providing water to the home ignition zone) as taught by McDonald, into the system disclosed by Shavit to assist with how and where to position the deployment points (Para. 0085) and yielding the predictable result of providing water to the home ignition zone.
Shavit in view of McDonald does not teach at a fuel moisture content that is from about 100 percent to about 300% during the predetermined time period.
However, Kulanda teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “Wildfire Suppression Assembly”) wherein the device keeps a fuel moisture content (Para. 0016 – “moisture content of the remote location”) above a threshold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (keeping a fuel moisture content above a threshold) as taught by Kulanda, into the system disclosed by Shavit in view of Hut, and McDonald to inhibit the development of a wildfire (Para. 0016) and yielding the predictable result of keeping the home ignition zone at a fuel moisture content during the predetermined time period.
Shavit in view of McDonald and Kulanda teaches the claimed invention except for a fuel moisture content that is from about 100 percent to about 300%. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a fuel moisture content that is from about 100 percent to about 300%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum ranges (of fuel moisture content) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of a fuel moisture content that is from about 100 percent to about 300% (Para. 0016, 0046), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 9 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavit in view of Hut, and La Bonte (US 5,931,233).
Regarding claim 9, Shavit in view of Hut teaches the system of claim 8, but does not teach wherein one or more of the EFMSs, the sprinkler tower system or both, have an additional water supply means.
However, La Bonte teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “Two-phase Fire Suppression/protection Method and System for Structures and Surrounding Grounds”) comprising an EFMSs (Fig. 1, 100) comprising additional water supply means (Col. 5: Ln. 39-52 – “normal water supply … raw water supply 108 (i.e., the swimming pool)”;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (an additional water supply means) as taught by La Bonte, into the system taught by Shavit in view of Hut to provides an alternate supply of water in case the normal water supply fails (Col. 5: Ln. 39-52) and yielding the predictable result of wherein one or more of the EFMSs having an additional water supply means.
Claim(s) 10 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavit in view of Hut, La Bonte, and Chaput (US 2006/0117676).
Regarding claim 10, Shavit in view of Hut, and La Bonte teaches the system of claim 9, but does not teach wherein the additional water supply means comprises a pumper truck.
However, Chaput teaches a prior art comparable device wherein the additional water supply means water supply may be a pumper truck (Para. 0008 – “water truck”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a water supply means may be a pumper truck) as taught by Chaput, into the system disclosed by Shavit in view of Hut, and La Bonte to provide a portable additional water supply means and yielding the predictable result of a pumper truck providing the additional water supply means.
Claim(s) 11 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavit in view of Hut, and Lee (WO 2021/194165).
Regarding claim 11, Shavit in view of Hut teaches the system of claim 1.
Shavit further discloses wherein the hydration plan comprises:
a. providing a sufficient amount of water (Para. 0050 – “The early operation irrigates the areas to be defended, improving the resistance of trees, gardens, and structures to ignition. The “initial” mode can be modified as the area becomes sufficiently drenched with water to provide fire resistance.”) over a predetermined time period (Para. 0048 – “A second parameter of risk is the expected “time to impact” (TTI) typically meaning the time for the fire to reach the community in a worst case scenario.”) to the area to maintain a level of hydration in the area (Para. 0050 – “sufficiently drenched with water to provide fire resistance” ) during the predetermined time period (Para. 0050 – “The early operation irrigates the areas to be defended, improving the resistance of trees, gardens, and structures to ignition. The “initial” mode can be modified as the area becomes sufficiently drenched with water to provide fire resistance.”; Water is provided to maintain a level of hydration during the time period because the time period is before the arrival of the fire.);
c. wherein the hydration level is defined as a level sufficient to maintain an ignition point of the structures, above the energy from a wildfire; thereby preventing ignition of the structures in the community of structures the predetermined time period (Para. 0050 – “The early operation irrigates the areas to be defended, improving the resistance of trees, gardens, and structures to ignition. The “initial” mode can be modified as the area becomes sufficiently drenched with water to provide fire resistance.”; Providing water to provide fire resistance to the structures maintains the ignition point above the energy from the wildfire to prevent a fire from the structure during the time period prior because the time period is before the arrival of the fire.).
Shavit does not disclose to maintain a level of hydration in the area at least 10% of a hydration level; and wherein the hydration level is based upon soil percentage water content by weight.;
However, Lee, teaches a prior art comparable method (Ti. – “Forest fire risk forecast method”) wherein a hydration level (Para. 100 – “soil moisture”) is based upon soil percentage water content by weight (Para. 0097 – “Soil moisture refers to the amount of water contained in the soil, and can be expressed as a percentage of the total volume of soil, water, and air.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (the hydration level is based upon soil percentage water content by weight) as taught by Lee, into the system disclosed by Shavit in view of Hut to provide information on the combustibility of vegetation near the ground surface (Para. 0100) and yielding the predictable result of a hydration level based upon soil percentage water content by weight.
Shavit in view of Lee teaches the claimed invention except for a level of hydration at least 10% of a hydration level. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a level of hydration at least 10% of a hydration level, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum range (for a level of hydration ) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of a level of hydration at least 10% of a hydration level (Para. 0017, 0046), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavit (US 2023/0211194).
Regarding claim 12, Shavit discloses a coordinated wildfire management system for the protection of a community of structures (Ab. – “A system and methods are provided for community outdoor fire protection”), the system comprising:
a plurality of structures (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2, 202; Para. 0044 – “Houses or buildings (or other types of water gun platforms) are indicated as buildings 202.”); wherein the plurality of structures and thereby define an area (Fig. 6 – 100A, 100B, 100C, and 100D; Para. 0044 – “FIGS. 6-7 depict maps showing aspects of an exemplary community 400 protected by a COFD system.”; Para. 0045 – “FIG. 7 illustrates, by circles, the coverage of water 204 for each of the endpoints 200.” );
an external fire management system (EFMSs) [Fig. 1 & Fig. 2, 200 except for 202];
a network (Fig. 1, 20 except for 200) comprising a monitoring and control system (Fig. 1, {110, 300, 500, 600, 700}); wherein the monitoring and control system comprises a graphic user interface (Fig. 23, 600), a processor (Para. 0108 – “The computing system may have one or more processors”) and a memory device ( Para. 0108 – “Memory storage may also include multiple distributed memory units, including one or more types of storage media.”);
wherein the EFMSs are in control communication with the monitoring and control system via the network (Para. 0032 – “an endpoint controller 201, connects the water gun valve 262 to a COFD local system controller 110. The COFD local system controller 110 may in turn be connected to the COFD operations controller 500, which may be located remotely.”),
the monitoring and control system is configured to:
determine a risk of a wildfire to the community of structures (Para. 0033 – “relative fire risks faced by the multiple endpoints”; Para. 0051 – “priority levels, corresponding to risk levels, of low, medium, high, and critical” ), thereby providing a determined risk of the wildfire to the community of structures (Para. 0033-0034 –“ As described further hereinbelow, risks may be determined by fire prediction models known in the art. Some of the fire prediction data is provided by the set of local sensors 300… These sensors, like endpoint controller 201, may communicate with the COFD application by wired or wireless means, communicating either directly, or through the local system controller 110, or directly to the operations controller 500”);
determine a hydration plan (Fig. 11 shows a hydration plan with a combination of different duty cycles for different EFMS’s) based upon the determined risk of the wildfire to the community of structures (Para. 0051 – “higher duty cycles assigned to endpoints facing higher risk”) and an available amount of water for the system (Para. 0050 – “the COFD application according to the meteorology parameters). The gradual application of water in advance of an immediate danger is important to (a) prevent large amounts of water from being wasted, and (b) improving resistance while keeping most water resources in reserve in case they are needed if the risk increases. As the fire approaches and the risk level increases, the COFD application may gradually increase water gun duty cycles to increase the level of resistance”) and thereby provide an automated adaptive hydration plan;
wherein the automated adaptive hydration plan provides for using no more than the available amount of water (Para. 0026 – “The COFD system protects a community 400 (also referred to herein as a “local system”) that is supplied by a water distribution system (WDS) 442”; Para. 0027 – “The COFD local system 400 may include multiple clusters, which may be treated independently for the purpose of water distribution planning, as long as the total supply limitation of each cluster does not exceed the supply limitation of the WDS.”; Para. 0047 – “a process for determining the number of guns that may be operated simultaneously and for allocating water to all water guns in an intermittent manner. The allocation is based on determining operating duty cycles for the water guns and scheduling the duty cycles according to time slots”) to protect the community of structures from the determined risk of the wildfire to the community of structures.
Shavit does not explicitly disclose wherein more than 75 percent of the structures have an external fire management system.
However, Shavit discloses 54 percent of structures have an external fire management system (Fig. 7 shows 47 EFMS by showing the coverage (204) of each water gun (263) where the water guns are shown as part of the EFMS in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 and shows 86 structures denoted by rectangles filled with black dots.; Para. 0028 – “Typically, the location of the water gun is determined as the center of an area (e.g., a commercial or residential lot) including a building and its surrounding area.”) and further discloses that the coverage of the water at the endpoints “reduces the chance of fires being ignited by sparks (i.e., airborne embers) that can travel in the wind from the fire and can land behind buildings that face a fire” (Para. 0045) and that the fire hazard area for this community is denoted as 471 which is shown in Fig. 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein more than 75 percent of the structures have an external fire management system, with a reasonable expectation of success, namely providing more water coverage to the community of structures.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein more than 75 percent of the structures have an external fire management system, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value (of the structures having an external fire management system) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of more than 75 percent of the structures have an external fire management system (Para. 0018), this particular arrangement