DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US 6,258,471) in view of Hill (US 5,273,060).
Regarding claim 1, James discloses a method of using a fire suppression system, the method comprising:
maintaining an inert atmosphere in a chamber (Column 7, lines 22-24, and inert atmosphere is maintained in a glove box) and enclosing a workpiece in the chamber (Column 7, lines 22-31, a metallic iron workpiece is enclosed in the chamber). James also discloses the glove box including a monitoring device to assist with oxygen manipulation and an alarm bell (Column 7, lines 26-28), but is silent as to whether the monitoring and oxygen manipulation method includes sensing a chamber temperature within the chamber with a temperature sensor;
sensing a chamber oxygen concentration within the chamber with an oxygen sensor;
comparing the chamber temperature to a predetermined temperature and comparing the chamber oxygen concentration to a predetermined oxygen concentration;
dispensing an antipyrophoric material onto the workpiece within the chamber if the chamber temperature meets or exceeds the predetermined temperature or if the chamber oxygen concentration meets or exceeds the predetermined oxygen concentration.
Hill discloses an analogous monitoring and oxygen manipulation method in the same field of endeavor, that may be implemented into the current method (See below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify James with the disclosures of Hill, providing the method of James to include the monitoring and oxygen manipulation method of Hill, in order to provide for safe confinement, extinguishing, and/or dissipation of any fire or explosion within the chamber, as disclosed by Hill (Column 1, lines 17-20).
The James in view of Hill glove box monitoring and oxygen manipulation method includes:
sensing a chamber temperature within the chamber (James, glove box) with a temperature sensor (Hill, 8) (Hill, Column 6, lines 15-16);
sensing a chamber oxygen concentration within the chamber (James, glove box) with an oxygen sensor (Hill, Column 6, lines 36-39);
comparing the chamber temperature to a predetermined temperature and comparing the chamber oxygen concentration to a predetermined oxygen concentration (Hill, Column 6, lines 23-28 and 36-39, Each of the sensors are configured to perform a function dependent upon the sensed temperature and oxygen level, as such the disclosure suggests that the readings are compared to a threshold level);
dispensing an antipyrophoric material (Hill, carbon dioxide snow) onto the workpiece (James, metallic iron workpiece) within the chamber (James, glove box) if the chamber temperature meets or exceeds the predetermined temperature or if the chamber oxygen concentration meets or exceeds the predetermined oxygen concentration (Hill, Column 6, lines 23-28, Carbon dioxide snow is dispensed in the event a predetermined temperature is met or exceeded; The indication that the fire is smother suggests that the snow is dispensed onto the workpiece);
As to claim 2, the method of claim 1, wherein the chamber is a glove box (James, column 7, lines 22-24) comprising viewing windows (Hill, 17) and a plurality of sealed glove ports (Hill, 26) (Hill, Figure 3) positioned to enable user manipulation of the workpiece about a workspace within the chamber (The glove ports are capable of providing for manipulation, Hill, Column 5, lines 16-19).
As to claim 3, wherein maintaining the inert atmosphere in the chamber comprises supplying nitrogen to the chamber (James, Column 14, lines 64-65).
As to claim 6, the method of claim 1, wherein dispensing the antipyrophoric material onto the workpiece within the chamber comprises creating an oxygen barrier surrounding the workpiece (Hill, see claim 1, The workpiece is smothered, which suggests it is surrounded by a barrier).
As to claim 4, James in view of Hill discloses the method of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the predetermined oxygen concentration is 15%.
James discloses that the oxygen level is optimized in order to avoid explosion in the system (Column 7, lines 28-30). The oxygen level is put forth as a result effective variable, as maintaining of the oxygen level at a desired level maintains the safety of the system. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the James in view of Hill device to have an oxygen concentration within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the amount of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of James in view of Hill by providing the system maintained to have a predetermined oxygen concentration of 15% as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of Hill, further in view of Bloch (FR 2961705).
Regarding claim 5, James in view of Hill discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein dispensing the antipyrophoric material within the chamber comprises dispensing a magnesium oxide sand comprising an anticaking agent.
Bloch discloses a device wherein a metal fire retardant material is a magnesium oxide sand, with 45% magnesium and a waterproofing agent to prevent adherence (paragraph 52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify James in view of Hill with the disclosures of Bloch, providing magnesium oxide sand as the retardant material, as the material was a known metal fire retardant before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including protection against metal fire in the system.
As to claim 7, James in view of Hill discloses the method of claim 1, wherein dispensing the antipyrophoric material onto the workpiece within the chamber comprises dispensing the antipyrophoric material through a discharge nozzle (Hill, Column 6, lines 21-28, the material is dispensed through the nozzles of system Hill, 21) to cover the workpiece (Hill, see claim 1, the fire/workpiece is smothered) in a substantially conical pile (the workpiece is capable of being covered as claimed), but fails to disclose that the material is a granular sand.
Bloch discloses a device wherein a metal fire retardant material is a granular magnesium oxide sand (paragraph 52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify James in view of Hill with the disclosures of Bloch, providing granular magnesium oxide sand as the retardant material, as the material was a known metal fire retardant before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including protection against metal fire in the system.
Regarding claim 8, James in view of Hill discloses the method of claim 1, wherein dispensing the antipyrophoric material onto the workpiece within the chamber comprises dispensing the antipyrophoric material through a discharge nozzle (Hill, Column 6, lines 21-28), to cover the workpiece (Hill, see claim 1, the workpiece is smothered) in substantially conical overlapping piles (The workpiece is capable of being covered as claimed), but is silent as to whether there are a plurality of nozzles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of nozzles since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis, 193 USPQ 8.
James in view of Hill also fails to disclose that the material is a granular sand.
Bloch discloses a device wherein a metal fire retardant material is a granular magnesium oxide sand (paragraph 52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify James in view of Hill with the disclosures of Bloch, providing granular magnesium oxide sand as the retardant material, as the material was a known metal fire retardant before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including protection against metal fire in the system.
Claim(s) 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of Hill, further in view of Ballard (US 6,972,115).
Regarding claim 11, James in view of Hill discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein dispensing the antipyrophoric material onto the workpiece within the chamber comprises discharging the antipyrophoric material from a hopper attached to the chamber.
Ballard discloses a device wherein dispensing of a dry material into a chamber comprises discharging the material from a hopper (826) into a chamber (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify James in view of Hill with the disclosures of Ballard, providing the material in the chamber (of Hill) to be discharged from a hopper (as put forth in Ballard), as the methods were known alternatives to provide for solid material discharge in a chamber, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including controlled discharge of material into the chamber.
Regarding claim 12, James in view of Hill and Ballard discloses the method of claim 11, wherein dispensing the antipyrophoric material onto the workpiece within the chamber comprises remotely opening a valve between the hopper and the chamber (Ballard, Column 32, lines 21-27, As modified, the valves of the hopper are controlled by a computer; Hill, Column 6, lines 23-28, the discharge of material is controlled by a computer receiving sensor data).
Regarding claim 13, James in view of Hill and Ballard discloses the method of claim 12, wherein dispensing the antipyrophoric material onto the workpiece within the chamber comprises the temperature sensor and the oxygen concentration sensor communicating with a controller of the valve to remotely open the valve (Hill, Column 6, lines 23-28), but fails to disclose the communication occurring wirelessly.
Hill provides a wired communication. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the communication to occur wirelessly. Applicant has not disclosed that the configuration solves a stated problem, and it appears the device would perform equally well with wired communication.
Regarding claim 14, James in view of Hill and Ballard discloses the method of claim 12, wherein dispensing the antipyrophoric material onto the workpiece within the chamber comprises gravity pulling the antipyrophoric material from the hopper through the valve to the chamber (The method step is suggested, as there is no force exerted upon opening of the valve to discharge the powder).
Regarding claim 15, James in view of Hill and Ballard discloses the method of claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein remotely opening the valve comprises controlling a solenoid to open the valve.
Ballard discloses that solenoid valves may also be used in a hopper system (Column 19, lines 36-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a solenoid valve, as opposed to a ball valve, as the valving types were known structures to provide for discharge, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including control of the rate of flow through the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The limitations of claim 9 are not disclosed or put forth by the prior art. The prior art puts forth discharge from a container, but fails to disclose discharge taking place from an emitter coupled to a cabinet with compartments and control systems. Examiner finds no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752