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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The supplemental amendment filed on 07/21/2026 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the following:
Existing 35 USC § 112(a) Rejection
Existing 35 USC § 112(b) Rejection
Certain Drawing Objections
Status of Claims
Claims 6-10, 13-14, 17, and 19 are as previously presented. Claims 2 and 15 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-5, 11-12, 16, 18, and 20-23 are amended. Therefore, claims 1, 3-14, and 16-23 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites the limitation "evaluation route '' in line 8 of claim 7. However, it is suggested to amend to - evacuation route -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites the limitation "iiii. whereby'' in line 36 of claim 12. However, it is suggested to amend to - iv. whereby -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites the limitation "wherein one or more of the sprinkler tower systems is located'' in line 4 of claim 20. However, it is suggested to amend to -wherein one or more of the sprinkler tower systems are located-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 recites the limitation "wherein two or more of the sprinkler tower systems is located'' in line 4 of claim 21. However, it is suggested to amend to -wherein two or more of the sprinkler tower systems are located-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 22 recites the limitation "wherein two or more of the sprinkler tower systems is located'' in line 4 of claim 22. However, it is suggested to amend to -wherein two or more of the sprinkler tower systems are located-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 23 recites the limitation "wherein three or more of the sprinkler tower systems is located'' in line 4 of claim 23. However, it is suggested to amend to -wherein there or more of the sprinkler tower systems are located-. 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.
A claim limitation that uses the word “means” but is not being interpreted under 112(f) is below.
“Additional water supply means” in line 2 of claim 9. The limitation includes the term “means,” but is modified by sufficient structure namely “water supply” and thus is NOT being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows.
“A monitoring device” in line 14 of claim 1 and line 15 of claim 5. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “monitor a wildfire event and provide information about the wildfire event to the network” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“An external fire management systems (EFMSs)” in lines 5-6 of claim 12. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “in control communication with the monitoring and control system” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “A monitoring device” in line 14 of claim 1 and line 15 of claim 5 because Para. 0081 recites “fixed monitoring devices (e.g., cell tower mounted devices, external fire suppression system, fire services, weather services, traffic monitors, first responders, emergency services, etc.)” and firstly fire services, weather services, first responders, emergency services are not devices. Secondly cell tower mounted devices recites a location of mounting and not a specific structure. Thirdly a traffic monitor is meant to monitor traffic and not a wildfire event.
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “An external fire management systems (EFMSs)” in lines 5-6 of claim 12, because lines Para. 0094 of the applicant’s specification states “the EMFS can be made up, in whole or in part, of irrigation system components; and in particular, one or more of: the water line into the irrigation system, the manifolds or distribution headers for the irrigation system, the tubing or piping connecting the irrigation system to the water distribution devices, e.g., sprinkler heads, the local controller for the irrigation system, and the water distribution devices, e.g., sprinkler heads, for the irrigation system” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a water line, a local control, and a sprinkler head”, or equivalent thereof.
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 1, 3-11, and 20-23 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.
Claims 1 and 5 recites the limitation “A monitoring device” in line 14 of claim 1 and line 15 of claim 5, and the applicant' s specification describes functional limitations of “A monitoring device” but fails to describe any structure, and merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness because Para. 0081 of the applicant’s specification recites “fixed monitoring devices (e.g., cell tower mounted devices, external fire suppression system, fire services, weather services, traffic monitors, first responders, emergency services, etc.)” and firstly fire services, weather services, first responders, emergency services are not devices. Secondly cell tower mounted devices recites a location of mounting and not a specific structure. Thirdly a traffic monitor is meant to monitor traffic and not a wildfire event. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. See MPEP 2181 § IV
Claims 3-4, 6-11, and 20-23 depend from claim 1, therefore claims 2-4, 6-11, and 20-23 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claims 11 and 20-23 depend from claim 5, therefore claims 11 and 20-23 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.
Claim limitation “A monitoring device” in line 14 of claim 1 and line 15 of claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Para. 0081 recites “fixed monitoring devices (e.g., cell tower mounted devices, external fire suppression system, fire services, weather services, traffic monitors, first responders, emergency services, etc.)” and firstly fire services, weather services, first responders, emergency services are not devices. Secondly cell tower mounted devices recites a location of mounting and not a specific structure. Thirdly a traffic monitor is meant to monitor traffic and not a wildfire event.
Therefore, the claims 1 and 5 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-4, 6-11, and 20-23 depend from claim 1, therefore claims 2-4, 6-11, and 20-23 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claims 11 and 20-23 depend from claim 5, therefore claims 11 and 20-23 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claims 1-5, 6-11, and 20-23 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation ”wherein the hydration plan provides for using a minimum amount of water needed to protect the area from a wildfire threat; wherein the hydration plan provides for using 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: thereby preventing an ignition of the structures” in lines 20-27 of claim 1. It is unclear if the applicant intends for the minimum amount of water to be less than 1 inch of water per 24 hour period to a home ignition zone because the claim language has the minimum amount of water and wherein the hydration plan provides for using less than 1 inch of water per 24 hour period to a home ignition zone as two separate claimed elements. Furthermore, the term “minimum” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimum” 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. The term “minimum” is a relative term with no objective standard in the claim or specification (Para. 0015, 0044) to where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how it relates to the amount of water required to protect the area from a wildfire threat.
Claims 2-4, 6-11, and 20-23 depend from claim 1, therefore claims 2-4, 6-11, and 20-23 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 5 recites the limitation ” the control system comprising a hydration plan 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: thereby providing a sufficient amount of water over a predetermined time period 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% to 300% during the predetermined time period;” in lines 21-27 of claim 1. This limitation describes an “intended result” and does not provide a clear cut indication of scope because Para. 0108 or 0109 in the application listed examples of materials in consideration of associated water amount to saturate the material to achieve the claimed “fuel moisture content”. However, since the claimed system does not positively recite these materials or any sensors to measure the fuel moisture content, it is unknown how this limitation further limits the claimed hydration plan programmed into the control system. Additionally, the term “minimum” 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, and the term “minimum” is a relative term with no objective standard in the claim or specification (Para. 0016-0017, 0046) to where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how it relates to the amount of water required to protect the area from a wildfire threat. Furthermore, the term “sufficient” is a relative term with no objective standard in the claim or specification (Para. 0015, 0044, 00181, 00186, 00195) to where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how it relates to the amount of water required, and the term “sufficient” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” 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. The claim is addressed as best understood by the Examiner.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a. providing a sufficient amount of water over a predetermined time period to the area to maintain a level of hydration in the area at least 10% of a hydration level during the predetermined time period; b. wherein the hydration level is based upon soil percentage water content by weight; c. wherein the hydration level is defined as a level sufficient to maintain an ignition point of the structures, fuel sources in the community of structures or both above the energy from an ember attack, a wildfire or both; thereby preventing ignition of the structures, the fuel sources in the community of structures or both during the predetermined time period,” in lines 2-11 of claim 11. This limitation described an “intended result” and does not provide a clear cut indication of scope because Para. 0249-0250 describes specific hydration levels as soil percentage water content by weight, Para. 00087, 00093, 00112, describes monitoring hydration levels, and Para. 0097, 00116, 00114, 00176 describes operating the EFMS to maintain the hydration levels. However, since the claimed system does not positively recite these materials or any sensors to measure the hydration level, it is unknown how this limitation further limits the claimed hydration plan programmed into the control system. Secondly, it is unclear how the soil percentage water content is measured or calculated, if the soil percentage water content is not a measured or calculated value, it is unclear if this is an estimated value/condition. Additionally, it is also unclear how this limitation defines the boundary of the “hydration plan” algorithm. Furthermore, the term “sufficient” is a relative term with no objective standard in the claim or specification (Para. 0015, 0044, 00181, 00186, 00195) to where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how it relates to the amount of water required, and the term “sufficient” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” 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. The claim is addressed as best understood by the Examiner.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a plurality of sprinkler tower systems .. wherein one or more sprinkler tower system… wherein the sprinkler tower system provides a zone of protection: whereby the zone of protection includes a portion of the roadway, a portion of the open space in the community of structures, or one of the structures” in lines 2-10 of claim 20. It is unclear if the zone of protection that includes a portion of the roadway, a portion of the open space in the community of structures, or one of the structures is for one of the sprinkler tower systems, or each of the plurality of sprinkler tower systems. The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a plurality of sprinkler tower systems .. wherein one or more of the plurality sprinkler tower systems… one or more of the plurality sprinkler tower systems provides a zone of protection: whereby the zone of protection includes a portion of the roadway, a portion of the open space in the community of structures, or one of the structures”
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a plurality of sprinkler tower systems .. wherein two or more sprinkler tower systems… wherein two or more of the sprinkler tower systems is located near a roadway in the community and an open space in the community of structures; wherein the sprinkler tower system provides a zone of protection; whereby the zone of protection includes a portion of the roadway and a portion of the open space in the community of structures,” in lines 2-8 of claim 21. It is unclear if the zone of protection includes a portion of the roadway and a portion of the open space in the community of structures is for one of the sprinkler tower systems, a combination of two or more of the sprinkler tower systems or each of the plurality of sprinkler tower systems. It is further unclear if multiple sprinkler tower systems must include a zone of protection that encompasses the same portion of roadway and open space or different portions of the roadway and open space. The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a plurality of sprinkler tower systems .. wherein two or more of the plurality of sprinkler tower systems… wherein two or more of the plurality of sprinkler tower systems are located near a roadway in the community and an open space in the community of structures wherein two or more of the plurality of sprinkler tower systems each provide a zone of protection; whereby the zone of protection includes a portion of the roadway and a portion of the open space in the community of structures.”
Similar rejection applies to claims 22-23
Claim 22 recites the limitation “a structure,” in lines 5 of claim 22, but claim 12 from which claim 22 depends recites the limitation “a plurality of structures” in line 3 of claim 12. It is unclear if the structure is part of the plurality of structures.
Similar rejection applies to claim 23.
The above are just examples of inconsistencies and problematic issues noted by the Examiner. Applicant is advised to carefully review and amend the application to correct other deficiencies. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
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.
(Note 1: cross-out limitations in this office action indicates the lack of explicit teaching in the primary reference; the limitation is addressed by the teaching reference(s) below).
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavit (US 2023/0211194) in view of Stanley (US 2022/0143438), and McDonald (US 2024/0075329).
Regarding claim 1, Shavit discloses a coordinated wildfire management system (Figs. 1-3 & 6-7, all structural features) for the protection of a community of structures (Fig. 7), the system comprising:
a plurality of external fire management systems (EFMSs) (Fig. 1-2, 200; Circles shown in Fig. 7 represent an EFMS as described in Para. 0044-0045 omitting the circles related to the sprinkler tower systems shown in annotated Fig. 7 of claim 7), wherein each EFMS comprises a local controller (Fig. 1-2, 201), a water supply line (Fig. 1-2, 261), the water supply line in fluid communication witha sprinkler head (Fig. 1-2, 263; Underlined to emphasize difference from the claimed language.);
a plurality of structures (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2, 202 which are indicated as rectangles shown in Fig. 7 omitting the sprinkler tower systems shown in annotated Fig. 7 of claim 7; Para. 0044 – “Houses or buildings (or other types of water gun platforms) are indicated as buildings 202.”)); wherein the plurality of structures define an area for the community of structures (Fig. 6 – 100A, 100B, 100C, and 100D);
wherein more than half of the structures have one of the plurality of EFMSs (Fig. 7 shows 46 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 85 structures denoted by rectangles filled with black dots excluding the sprinkler tower system shown in annotated fig 7 of claim 7 which is 54 percent of structures.); whereby each EFMS is integral 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 & 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 (Para. 0050; Initial mode and maintenance mode.) 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. 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); wherein the hydration plan provides an amount of water (Para. 0050; The amount of water provided the initial and maintenance mode.; Underlined to emphasize difference from the claimed language.)
Shavit does not disclose wherein each EFMS comprises wherein the water supply line in fluid communication with a manifold, and the manifold in fluid communication with a plurality of sprinkler heads; wherein the hydration plan provides for using 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, Stanley teaches a prior art comparable wildfire shielding system (Fig. 4, all structural features) comprising an EFMS (Fig. 4, all structural features) wherein a water supply line (Fig. 4, line connecting item 406 and 408) in fluid communication with a manifold (Fig. 4, 408), and the manifold in fluid communication with a plurality of sprinkler heads (Fig. 4, 410).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the prior art contained the coordinated wildfire management system disclosed by Shavit upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" device, namely the wildfire shielding system taught by Stanley that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention, namely an EFMS (Fig. 4, all structural features) wherein a water supply line (Fig. 4, line connecting item 406 and 408) in fluid communication with a manifold (Fig. 4, 408), and the manifold in fluid communication with a plurality of sprinkler heads (Fig. 4, 410), and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely the fire suppression system activating and preventing the ignition of a structure due to a wildfire.
Shavit in view of Stanley does not teach wherein the hydration plan provides for using 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 structure and curtilage protection system (Fig. 1A-1C, all structural features) comprising 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, the examiner finds that the prior art contained the coordinated wildfire management system taught by Shavit in view of Stanley upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" device, namely the structure and curtilage protection system taught by McDonald that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention, namely providing water 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, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely providing water to the home ignition zone to prevent a fire with the benefit of assisting in the position of the nozzles (McDonald – Para. 0085).
Shavit in view of Stanley and McDonald does not teach wherein the hydration plan provides for using less than 1 inch of water per 24 hour period to the home ignition zone.
However, Shavit further discloses where the amount of water provided is a results effective variable (Para. 0050 – “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”). Therefore, 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 the hydration plan provides for using less than 1 inch of water per 24 hour period to the 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 or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application (Para. 00016, 00108, 00262-00263, 00268-00270) applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Shavit in view of Stanley and McDonald teaches the system of claim 1.
Shavit in view of Stanley and McDonald does not teach wherein all of the structures in the plurality of structures have one of the plurality of EFMSs.
However, duplicating the EFMSs, which are already replicated across a majority of the communities’ structures (Shavit, Fig. 7), all of the structures in the plurality of structures would be a mere duplication of parts, and “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” See MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B. Please note that in the instant application (Para. 00016, 00042) applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Shavit in view of Stanley 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.”).
Regarding claim 5, Shavit discloses a coordinated wildfire management system (Figs. 1-3 & 6-7, all structural features) for the protection of a community of structures (Fig. 7), the system comprising:
a plurality of external fire management systems (EFMSs) (Fig. 1-2, 200; Circles shown in Fig. 7 represent an EFMS as described in Para. 0044-0045). wherein each EFMS comprises a local controller (Fig. 1-2, 201) a water supply line (Fig. 1-2, 261) the water supply line in fluid communication witha sprinkler head (Fig. 1-2, 263; Underlined to emphasize difference from the claimed language.);
a plurality of structures (Fig. 1-2, 202; Para. 0044 – “Houses or buildings (or other types of water gun platforms) are indicated as buildings 202.”) wherein the plurality of structures define an area for the community of structures (Fig. 6 – 100A, 100B, 100C, and 100D);
wherein more than half of the structures have one of the plurality of EFMSs (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 integral 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 & 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 (Para. 0050; Initial mode and maintenance mode.) 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. 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): thereby providing a sufficient amount of water over a predetermined time period (Para. 0050-0052 – “time slots”) 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% to 300% during the predetermined time period (See 112(b) above.; The manner of providing water in Para. 0050-0052 uses a minimum amount of water to achieve the intended result of maintain a level of hydration in the home ignition zone at a fuel moisture content that is from about 100% to 300% during the predetermined time period of continuous water application);
Shavit does not disclose wherein each EFMS comprises wherein the water supply line in fluid communication with a manifold, and the manifold in fluid communication with a plurality of sprinkler heads; and 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, Stanley (US 2022/0143438) teaches a prior art comparable wildfire shielding system (Fig. 4, all structural features) comprising an EFMS (Fig. 4, all structural features) wherein a water supply line (Fig. 4, line connecting item 406 and 408) in fluid communication with a manifold (Fig. 4, 408), and the manifold in fluid communication with a plurality of sprinkler heads (Fig. 4, 410).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the prior art contained the coordinated wildfire management system disclosed by Shavit upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" device, namely the wildfire shielding system taught by Stanley that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention, namely an EFMS (Fig. 4, all structural features) wherein a water supply line (Fig. 4, line connecting item 406 and 408) in fluid communication with a manifold (Fig. 4, 408), and the manifold in fluid communication with a plurality of sprinkler heads (Fig. 4, 410), and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely the fire suppression system activating and preventing the ignition of a structure due to a wildfire.
Shavit in view of Stanley does not teach 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 structure and curtilage protection system (Fig. 1A-1C, all structural features) comprising 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, the examiner finds that the prior art contained the coordinated wildfire management system taught by Shavit in view of Stanley upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" device, namely the structure and curtilage protection system taught by McDonald that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention, namely providing water 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, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely providing water to the home ignition zone to prevent a fire with the benefit of assisting in the position of the nozzles (McDonald – Para. 0085).
Regarding claim 6, Shavit in view of Stanley and McDonald teaches the system of claim 1.
Shavit in view of Stanley and McDonald does not teach wherein at least 90 percent of the structures in the plurality of structures has one of the plurality of EFMSs.
However, duplicating the EFMSs, which are already replicated across a majority of the communities’ structures (Shavit, Fig. 7), to at least 90 percent of the structures in the plurality of structures would be a mere duplication of parts, and “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” See MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B. Please note that in the instant application (Para. 00016, 00042) applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Shavit in view of Stanley and McDonald teaches the system of claim 1.
Shavit further discloses the system comprising: a sprinkler tower system (Fig. 1-2, instance of 200 shown in Annotated Fig. 7 as sprinkler tower system where the water gun is mounted to a platform as described in Para. 0028 and 0044); wherein the sprinkler tower system is located near a roadway (Annotated Fig. 7; Near a roadway is interpreted as near enough to the roadway to provide a zone of protection to a portion of the roadway.) in the community of structures and at least one of the structures in the community of structures (Annotated Fig. 7); wherein the sprinkler tower system provides a zone of protection (Annotated Fig. 7); 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 (Para. 0045).
Annotated Figure 7 of claim 7
PNG
media_image1.png
642
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Shavit in view of Stanley and McDonald teaches the system of claim 1.
Shavit further discloses the sprinkler comprising a plurality of sprinkler tower systems (Annotated fig. 7); wherein the sprinkler tower systems are in control communication with the control system (Para. 0032); and, delivery of water from the sprinkler tower systems is a part of the hydration plan (The sprinkler tower systems are part of the hydration plan the same way as the EFMSs. Para. 0050).
Regarding claim 11, Shavit in view of Stanley and McDonald teaches the system of claim 1.
Shavit further discloses
providing a sufficient amount of water over a predetermined time period to the area to maintain a level of hydration in the area at least 10% of a hydration level during the predetermined time period (Para. 0050-0052; Water is provided over a predetermined time (time slots). See 112(b) above);
wherein the hydration level is based upon soil percentage water content by weight (Since Shavit considers wetting the area (Para. 0050-0052) which includes soil, the hydration level applied via Shavit is understood to partly consider the soil percentage (neither the spec or the claim clearly indicate that the “soil percentage water content” is quantified or explicitly part of the software algorithm); See 112(b) above);
wherein the hydration level is defined as a level sufficient to maintain an ignition point of the structures, fuel sources in the community of structures or both above the energy from an ember attack, a wildfire or both; thereby preventing ignition of the structures, the fuel sources in the community of structures or both during the predetermined time period (Para. 0050 – “the area becomes sufficiently drenched with water to provide fire resistance” ; See 112(b) above).
Claim(s) 9 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Shavit in view of Stanley, McDonald, and La Bonte (US 5,931,233).
Regarding claim 9, Shavit in view of Stanley and McDonald 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 Stanley and McDonald 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 providing water to the EFMSs by an additional water supply means when needed..
Claim(s) 10 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Shavit in view of Stanley, McDonald, La Bonte, and Chaput (US 2006/0117676).
Regarding claim 10, Shavit in view of Stanley, McDonald, La Bonte, and Chaput 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 roof cooling system (Fig. 1, all structural features) wherein a water supply means is 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 (an additional water supply means is a pumper truck) as taught by Chaput, into the system disclosed Shavit in view of Shavit in view of Stanley, McDonald, 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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Shavit in view of Smagac (US 5,165,482).
Regarding claim 12, Shavit discloses A coordinated wildfire management system for the protection of a community of structures, the system comprising:
a plurality of structures (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2, 202 which are indicated as rectangles shown in Fig. 7 omitting the sprinkler tower systems shown in annotated Fig. 7 of claim 20; Para. 0044 – “Houses or buildings (or other types of water gun platforms) are indicated as buildings 202.”); wherein the plurality of structures define an area for the community of structures (Fig. 6 – 100A, 100B, 100C, and 100D);
wherein some (underline to emphasize difference from applicants claimed language) the structures have an external fire management systems (EFMSs) (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2, 200 except for 202 shown as 204 in Fig. 7 omitting the instances of 202 shown in Annotated Fig. 7 of claim 20; Para. 0045 – “FIG. 7 illustrates, by circles, the coverage of water 204 for each of the endpoints 200.”; Per the 112(f) interpretation a local controller (Fig. 1-2, 201); a water line (Fig. 1-2, 261); a sprinkler head (Fig. 1-2, 263));
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.
the available amount of water is defined as:
a flow rate (FW) [Para. 0092 – “determined limit on total flow”; Para. 0027 – “The cluster water network 443 is assumed to be able to supply a limited water flow”]; and,
and total volume of water (VW) [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.”; A regional water reservoir has a total volume of water.];
the determined risk of the wildfire to the community of structures includes a time period (Tr) [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.”]; and
the hydration plan comprises:
the system delivering water to the area of the community of structures at one or more locations in the area (Para. 0028 – “Each endpoint 200 includes a water gun 263 … the water gun typically is configured to rotate, such that ejected water 204 covers a full or partial circular area”; Fig. 7);
the delivery of water to the one or more locations being at one or more intervals (I) for each of the locations [Intervals are shown in Fig. 11 where each of the black solid squares indicate a 2 minute interval as described in Para. 0052 to 0054 and the location is the numbered end point (200).] during the time period Tr [Para. 0054 – “The schedule shown would be a typical schedule generated by the COFD application for the early warning mode of operation (“initial mode”) illustrated in FIG. 8, described above.”]; wherein each interval (i) has a predetermined duration defined by an interval time (It) [Para. 0052 – “2 minute time slots”]; and,
the delivery of water during each interval (I) is at a predetermined flow rate (IFr) [Fig. 22B, 982; Para. 0092 –“ determined limit on total flow (this being equivalent dividing the desired number of concurrent water guns by the maximum limit on concurrent guns)”];
whereby the hydration plan delivers a total volume of water (HVW) during time period (Tr) [Para. 0099 – “The COFD application may also track aggregate water usage, providing statistics on current and aggregate water usage to the user interface.”; The hydration plan will deliver a total volume of water during the time period which is tracked by the system];
wherein IFr does not exceed FW [Fig. 22B; Para. 0091 and 0092 describes setting the duty cycles so that the IFr does not Exceed FW] and
thereby the structures are maintained at an ignition point above the energy from the wildfire; thereby preventing ignition of the structures, during the time period Tr (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 wherein more than 75 percent of the structures have an external fire management systems (EFMSs) and wherein HVW does not exceed VW
However, Smagac teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “Fire Deterrent System for Structures in A Wildfire Hazard Area”) wherein HVW does not exceed VW (Col. 7: Ln. 19-38 describes adjusting the flow of sprinklers (HVW); Flow of the sprinkler over time equates to a total volume of water) to the quantity available in the holding tank (VW); Fig. 4, 317-320);
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 (adjusting the volume of water discharged to prevent exceeding the water available) as taught by Smagac, into the system taught by Shavit to prevent running out of water (Fig. 4, 317-320) and yielding the predictable result of wetting the surrounding area with an available amount of water.
Shavit in view of Smagac does not teach wherein more than 75 percent of the structures have an external fire management systems (EFMSs).
However, duplicating the EFMSs, which are already replicated across a majority of the communities’ structures (Shavit, Fig. 7), to more than 75 percent of the structures in the plurality of structures would be a mere duplication of parts, and “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” See MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B. Please note that in the instant application (Para. 00016, 00042) applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Shavit in view of Smagac teaches the system of claim 12, and further discloses wherein the determined risk of the wildfire to the community of structures comprises a time period for the wildfire to reach the community of structures (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.”).
Regarding claim 14, Shavit teaches the system of claim 13, but does not teach wherein the time period further comprises a time for the wildfire to pass by the community of structures.
However, Smagac teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “Fire Deterrent System for Structures in A Wildfire Hazard Area”) comprising a time for the wildfire to pass by a structure (Fig. 1, R) (Col. 8: Ln. 6-11; Fig. 5, 323; The step of the fire passing by the structure happens over a time.).
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 time for the wildfire to pass by a structure) as taught by Smagac, into the system taught by Shavit reduce the amount of water being used (Fig. 5, 324, 325) and yielding the predictable result of reducing the wetting of structures when the wildfire has passed the community of structures.
Regarding claim 16, Shavit in view of Smagac teaches system of claim 12.
Shavit further discloses wherein time period Tr comprises a time period for the wildfire to reach the community of structures (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.”).
Regarding claim 17, Shavit in view of Smagac teaches system of claim 16.
Smagac further teaches wherein the time peri od Tr further comprises a time for the wildfire to pass by a structure (Fig. 1, R) (Col. 8: Ln. 6-11; Fig. 5, 323; The step of the fire passing by the structure happens over a time.).
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 time for the wildfire to pass by a structure) as taught by Smagac, into the system taught by Shavit reduce the amount of water being used (Fig. 5, 324, 325) and yielding the predictable result of reducing the wetting of structures when the wildfire has passed the community of structures.
Regarding claim 18, Shavit in view of Smagac teaches system of claim 12.
Shavit further discloses wherein for at least the majority of intervals (I) the interval time (It) is less than the time period Tr (Para. 0049 recites that “starting operation of water guns only when the TTI is less than 3 hours” indicating that Tr can be at least 3 hours and all of the intervals (I) shown in Fig. 11 have an interval time (It) of 2 minutes which is less than Tr).
Regarding claim 19, Shavit in view of Smagac teaches the system of claim 18.
Shavit further discloses wherein a total flow rate for all intervals (I) occurring at a same time does not exceed FW (Fig. 22B; Para. 0091 and 0092 describes setting the duty cycles so that total flow rate for all intervals (I) occurring at a same time does not exceed FW.)
Regarding claim 20, Shavit in view of Smagac teaches the system of claim 12.
Shavit further discloses the system comprising:
a plurality of sprinkler tower systems (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2, 200 except for 202 shown as 204 relating to the instances shown in annotated Fig. 7) located in the area for the community of structures;
wherein one or more of the sprinkler tower systems is located near a roadway in the community of structures, an open space in the community of structures, or one of the structures (Annotated Fig. 7; One or more sprinkler towers are located near a roadway.); wherein the sprinkler tower system provides a zone of protection (Fig. 7, Circles 204 around the sprinkler tower systems.); whereby the zone of protection includes a portion of the roadway, a portion of the open space in the community of structures, or one of the structures (The zone of protection includes a portion of the roadway as shown in Annotated Fig. 7));
wherein the sprinkler towers are in control communication with 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.”); and delivery of water from the sprinkler tower systems is a part of the hydration plan (The sprinkler tower system is part of the hydration plan in the same way as the EFMS’s.).
Annotated Figure 7 of claim 20
PNG
media_image2.png
714
697
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Shavit in view of Smagac teaches the system of claim 12.
Shavit further discloses the system comprising:
a plurality of sprinkler tower systems (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2, 200 except for 202 shown as 204 relating to the instances shown in annotated Fig. 7) located in the area for the community of structures;
wherein two or more of the sprinkler tower systems (Annotated Fig. 7) is located near a roadway in the community (Annotated Fig. 7) and an open space in the community of structures (The space in Fig. 7 not occupied by the road and structure including the white space around the sprinkler tower systems); wherein the sprinkler tower system provides a zone of protection (Fig. 7, Circles 204 around the sprinkler tower systems.); whereby the zone of protection includes a portion of the roadway and a portion of the open space in the community of structures (Annotated Fig. 7);
wherein the sprinkler towers are in control communication with 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.”); and delivery of water from the sprinkler tower systems is a part of the hydration plan (The sprinkler tower system is part of the hydration plan in the same way as the EFMS’s.).
Regarding claim 22, Shavit in view of Smagac teaches the system of claim 12.
Shavit further discloses the system comprising:
a plurality of sprinkler tower systems (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2, 200 except for 202 shown as 204 relating to the instances shown in annotated Fig. 7) located in the area for the community of structures;
wherein two or more of the sprinkler tower systems (Annotated Fig. 7 of claim 20) is located near a roadway in the community (Annotated Fig. 7 of claim 20) of structures and a structure; wherein the sprinkler tower system provides a zone of protection (Fig. 7, Circles 204 around the sprinkler tower systems.); whereby the zone of protection includes a portion of the roadway and the structure (Annotated Fig. 7);
wherein the sprinkler towers are in control communication with 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.”); and delivery of water from the sprinkler tower systems is a part of the hydration plan (The sprinkler tower system is part of the hydration plan in the same way as the EFMS’s.).
Regarding claim 23, Shavit in view of Smagac teaches the system of claim 12.
Shavit further discloses the system comprising:
a plurality of sprinkler tower systems (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2, 200 except for 202 shown as 204 relating to the instances shown in annotated Fig. 7 of claim 20) located in the area for the community of structures;
wherein three or more of the sprinkler tower systems (Annotated Fig. 7 of claim 20) is located near a roadway in the community of structures (Annotated Fig. 7 of claim 20), a structure (Annotated Fig. 7 of claim 20) and an open space (The space in Fig. 7 not occupied by the road and structure including the white space around the sprinkler tower systems) in the community of structures; wherein the sprinkler tower system provides a zone of protection (Fig. 7, Circles 204 around the sprinkler tower systems.); whereby the zone of protection includes a portion of the roadway, the structure and a portion of the open space in the community of structures (Annotated Fig. 7);
wherein the sprinkler towers are in control communication with 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.”); and delivery of water from the sprinkler tower systems is a part of the hydration plan (The sprinkler tower system is part of the hydration plan in the same way as the EFMS’s.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the argument on page 15 that “Shavit does not disclose an EFMS having a plurality of sprinkler heads as required by the claim,” the examiner respectfully disagrees because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With regards to the argument on page 15 that Shavit teaches away from a plurality of sprinkler heads on each structure, the Examiner disagrees because Shavit does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed and "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP § 2145 (X)(D)(1). Additionally, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With regards to the argument that Shavit does not use the minimum amount of water needed to protect an area from a wildfire; thereby preventing ignition. The examiner respectfully disagrees because Shavit’s hydration plan operates in the same way as claimed and thus provides a minimum amount of water the same ways as the applicant. Shavit discloses in Para. 0050 “The “initial” mode can be modified as the area becomes sufficiently drenched with water to provide fire resistance. If the fire remains a present but not an immediate threat, the COFD application may then reduce the water flow to a “maintenance mode,” which describes a minimum of water to provide fire resistance before reducing the flow to a maintenance mode.
With regards to the argument that Shavit plans on using all of the available water, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because Shavit discloses in Para. 0050 “(b) improving resistance while keeping most water resources in reserve in case they are needed if the risk increases.”
Applicant’s remaining arguments regarding Hut () have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752
August 5, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights