DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first non-final Office action (“Action”) in response to the reissue application filed May 13, 2025, from U.S. Patent No. 12,115,403 (“the ‘403 patent”), which issued from U.S. patent application no. 18/516,284 (“the ‘284 application”), where the shorthand “the ‘403 patent” and “the ‘284 application” are used interchangeably. A preliminary amendment was filed on May 13, 2025, which is entered, and in which claims 1, 8, and 15-20 are canceled and claims 2-5 and 9-14 are amended. Claim 6 is the only remaining independent claim and all other claims now depend from claim 6. Thus, claims 2-7 and 9-14 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The ‘403 patent has an effective filing date of Sep. 17, 2018, which is on or after March 16, 2013, thus, this application will be examined using the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . All references to sections 102 and 103 of U.S.C. title 35 in this Order are AIA unless otherwise stated.
This reissue application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, therefore, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.75, and 3.73 are to the current provisions enacted under the Leahy-Smith American Invents Act (“AIA ”). See Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 157, pg. 48820, August 16, 2012.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on May 13, 2025, Nov. 10, 2025, April 1, 2026, and July 31, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97 and 1.98 and the cited information has been considered.
Prior Art Citations
The following are the cited and applied prior art references in this Action.
"Pump Ops Simulator," webpage <http://www.faac.com/Pump Ops/index.html>, 2 pages, August 25, 2016, retrieved from Internet Archive Wayback Machine <https://web.archive.org/web/20160825204754/ http://www.faac.com/Pump Ops/index.html> on December 23, 2024, (hereinafter “Pump Ops”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0280748, to Aasmundseth et al. (“Aasmundseth”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0028851, to Mullins et al. (“Mullins”).
Third-Party Protest
A timely third-party protest was filed on Sept. 2, 2025, and was entered. The protest and all accompanying cited prior art have been fully considered. See MPEP § 1901.06, subsection IV.
Objection – Amendments
Claims 2-5 and 9-14 are objected to because the markings are not proper for showing the changes with respect to the original patent as required under 37 CFR § 1.173(b)(2),(d),(g). Specifically, the deleted limitations must be shown in single brackets. See MPEP § 1453. Additionally, claim 3 shows two double brackets surrounding the word “the” that are underlined, which creates confusion since the brackets are understood to mean the word is deleted, but underlining indicates the characters are added. As a reminder, all amendments must be with respect to the original patent regardless of previous filings in the reissue (see 37 CFR § 1.173(g)), and all deleted claim limitations must be enclosed in single brackets while added claim limitations must be singly underlined (see 37 CFR § 1.173(b)(2),(d)).
Objection – Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because the error which is relied upon to support the reissue application is not an error upon which a reissue can be based. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. Initially, it is noted that only the dependent claims were amended and all but one independent claim was canceled. A correctable error with respect to claims involves a broadening or narrowing of the claims, meaning an independent claim should be broadened or narrowed since any amendments to a dependent claim is not broadening and does not narrow the independent claim itself. Moreover, canceling claims can be achieved through filing a disclaimer in the underlying patent, but that was not done. Lastly, the error pointed to in the declaration on page 5 of the Remarks filed with the preliminary amendment is not phrased in a way that indicates an error. Rather, the error appears to be more of a request to reexamine claim 6 in light of the submitted prior art. However, requesting reexamination of claims in light of submitted prior art is not appropriate or a correctable error in a reissue application. For at least these reasons, the declaration is defective for failure to state a correctable error.
Notwithstanding the comments above, the reissue application is understood to be narrowing because there is no intent to broaden in any part of the initial filings or preliminary claim amendments. Thus, since dependent claims were amended and narrowed, this reissue application is understood to be a narrowing reissue. Applicant is thus also put on notice that since there is no intent to broaden apparent in the filings or preliminary claim amendments, and two years has passed since issuance of the ‘403 patent, the claims of the ‘403 cannot be broadened by any subsequent amendment or continuation applications. See MPEP § 1403, 1412.03; see also 35 U.S.C. § 251(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.— The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.— The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defects are set forth in the discussion above in this Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pump Ops.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites and Pump Ops (See Pump Ops annotated figure below) teaches:
A system comprising a plurality of pump panel training devices, comprising (Pump Ops shows and describes a pump panel simulator as a training device, page 1, introduction paragraph, and the plurality of gages and controls constitute the plurality of pump panel training devices), comprising:
the plurality of pump panel training devices, each comprising:
a plurality of simulated gages operable to imitate gages upon a fire truck pump panel (Pump Ops shows and describes a plurality of circular simulated gages, e.g., “Realistic hydraulics simulation models,” page 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
737
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of simulated controls operable to imitate controls upon the fire truck pump panel (Pump Ops shows and describes a plurality of simulated controls, such as, the elongated handles above the hose connection, page 1); and
a computerized device operable to coordinate data between the plurality of pump panel training devices (Pump Ops and Annotated Figure above in where the system is computerized based on the data displayed on at least the displays, which is coordinated between the various pump panel training devices, e.g., gages, controls, etc., and as described in the “Features,” the system is computerized to allow for simulation of the panel pump).
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites and Pump Ops teaches the “system of claim 6, further comprising a display operable to display rendered graphics.” See Pump Ops and Annotated Figure above in which there are at least two displays to display rendered graphics.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites and Pump Ops teaches the “system of claim 2, wherein the display comprises an external display operable to display details of a simulated environment around one of the plurality of pump panel training devices.” See Pump Ops and Annotated Figure above where at least one of the displays is attached to the pump panel training device and is described as displaying “3D training environments” and other visual imagery.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites and Pump Ops teaches the “system of claim 6, wherein the computerized device is further operable to simulate a first of the pump panel training devices supplying a flow of water to a second of the pump panel training devices.” See Pump Ops description of “Features,” which states, “Water sources depicted by virtual computer generated imagery” and “Simulates a variety of hand line nozzles, master stream nozzles and hoses,” thus, there is a simulation of a supply of water to the hose on the panel.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites and Pump Ops teaches the “system of claim 6, wherein one of the plurality of pump panel training devices further comprises an intake connection including an intake control valve knob.” See Pump Ops, the hose is connected to an intake connection and has various control elements, compare this with the intake 50 on the pump simulator in Fig. 1of the ‘403 patent.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites and Pump Ops teaches the “system of claim 9, wherein the intake connection further includes an intake tap fitting.” See Pump Ops, the hose is connected to an intake connection via a fitting.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites and Pump Ops teaches the “system of claim 6, wherein one of the plurality of pump panel training devices further comprises an intake connection including an intake tap fitting.” See Pump Ops, the hose is connected to an intake connection, compare this with the intake 50 on the pump simulator in Fig. 1of the ‘403 patent, and the hose is connected to an intake connection via a fitting.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites and Pump Ops teaches the “system of claim 6, wherein one of the plurality of pump panel training devices further comprises an intake connection and a hose portion to the intake connection.” See Pump Ops, the hose is connected to an intake connection, compare this with the intake 50 on the pump simulator in Fig. 1of the ‘403 patent.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites and Pump Ops teaches the “system of claim 12, wherein the intake connection includes a round fitting.” See Pump Ops and Annotated Figure Above, the hose attached to the pump is either a “first” or “second” end, both of which can be considered to have “a round hose fitting” or be “a sealed end,” and the other end of the hose, while not shown, is described as having either a “hand line nozzle” or “master stream nozzle,” which would either be a “round hose fitting” since the hose is round or a “sealed end” when the nozzle is in a closed state.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pump Ops in view of Aasmundseth, both of which are in the same field of firefighting training and/or simulation as the claimed invention.
Claim 4
Claim 4, which depends from claim 6, recites and Pump Ops teaches the “system of claim 6.” Pumps, however, does not teach the additionally recited limitations. Even so, Aasmundseth remedies this and teaches the system “further compris[es] a virtual reality visor.” See Aasmundseth ¶¶31-33. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a virtual reality system to train on firefighting equipment, as in Aasmundseth, in the larger firefighting panel simulator of Pump Ops to train both an individual and team of people who fight fires on using the equipment, including sensations and feelings that may be expected in real world use. See id. ¶¶31-33, 57.
Claim 5
Claim 5, which depends from claim 6, recites and Pump Ops teaches the “system of claim 6.” Pumps, however, does not teach the additionally recited limitations. Even so, Aasmundseth remedies this and teaches the system “further comprising a computerized device operable to operate augmented reality.” See Aasmundseth ¶51; see also id. ¶¶31-33. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an augmented reality system to train on firefighting equipment, as in Aasmundseth, in the larger firefighting panel simulator of Pump Ops to train both an individual and team of people who fight fires on using the equipment, including sensations and feelings that may be expected in real world use. See id. ¶¶31-33, 57.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pump Ops in view of Mullins, both of which are in the same field of firefighting training and/or simulation as the claimed invention.
Claim 13
Claim 13, which depends from claim 12, recites and Pump Ops teaches the “system of claim 12.” Pumps, however, does not teach the additionally recited limitations. Even so, Mullins remedies this and teaches “the hose portion is filled.” See Mullins, ¶¶16, 31, a “fluid supply for inflating at least a portion of the tube to simulate pressurisation of the hose of the fire extinguishing system” where it is common knowledge that water is the fluid inside a fire hose, and while Mullins acknowledges water is “not required,” Mullins is still understood to include water as a fluid choice for filling the hose. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the process of simulating the pressure of the liquid and gases being expelled from firefighting equipment by using pressurized air, as in Mullins, to the larger firefighting panel simulator and trainer of Pump Ops to train inexperienced people, such as new firefighters, how to use the firefighting equipment, including simulating the feeling of pressurized water being released from the equipment. See id. ¶¶5-6.
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Amendments made during examination of a reissue application are different than amendments made during examination of a standard utility application. See 37 CFR § 1.173; see also MPEP § 1453.
A few notable, but by no means the only, differences are:
Throughout examination of a reissue application, amendments are always with respect to the original patent regardless of any amendments that have already been filed. See 37 CFR § 1.173(g).
Deleted limitations must be shown in single brackets while newly added limitations and the entirety of newly added claims are underlined, including number and status identifier. See 37 CFR § 1.173(d).
Changes to the specification must mention where in the issued patent (i.e., column and lines numbers) the changes are to be made and the entirety of an amended paragraph must be presented, unless canceling the paragraph. See 37 CFR § 1.173(b)(1)(i); see also MPEP § 1453, subsection V.A., Example (1).
Status identifiers, after the first amendment, must indicate how many times an original patent claim has been amended during examination of the reissue application (e.g., “Twice Amended”, etc.). See 37 CFR § 1.173(b)(2).
When claims are amended, “there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.” 37 CFR § 1.173(c).
Applicant Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 12, 115,403 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 108470490 (with English translation attached) is also directed to pipeline training, including using a panel simulator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KADING whose telephone number is (571)270-3413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/JOSHUA KADING/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/Laura Davison/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/ SPRS, Art Unit 3993
