Albert Orglmeister

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2021

2020004506 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/437,463 02/21/2017 Albert Orglmeister 17-1212 4483
83657 7590 04/02/2021
Michael Soderman
Tauentzienstr 9-12
Berlin, 10789
GERMANY
EXAMINER
GREENLUND, JOSEPH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ip@soderman.us
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALBERT ORGLMEISTER

Appeal 2020-004506
Application 15/437,463
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“Albert Orglmeister.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004506
Application 15/437,463

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Subject Matter on Appeal
The Appellant’s invention relates to a method in which
video/infrared-controlled extinguishing systems are used to precisely hit a
target (i.e., detected fire sources) so that fires can be combated as quickly as
possible with as little extinguishing agent as possible. See Spec. 6, 8. “This
saves time in combating the fire, since the greatest possible quantity of fire
extinguishing agent is applied to the source of fire with greatest accuracy.”
Id. at 8.
Claim 1, the sole claim involved in this appeal, is reproduced below.
1. A method for improving hit accuracy of fire detection
systems controlled by infrared and video fire detection by
means of a first IR/video camera system for a first detection
unit (D1) to ensure continuous fire detection and a second
IR/video camera system for a second detection unit (D2) to
ensure automatic target tracking with respect to the source of
fire, as well as to an extinguisher launcher (A) rigidly
connected to the second detection unit (D2), comprising the
steps:
- in a first step, a deviation (F1) of a centre point of an
extinguishing agent jet (F) in a direction of rotation (C)
of the extinguisher launcher (A) to a centre point (M) of a
detection area (E) of the second detection unit (D2) is
determined,
- in a second step, coarse alignment of the extinguisher
launcher (A) with the source of fire is performed, by
means of the position of the source of fire (G) as
determined with the first detection unit (D1),
- in a third step, a deviation (G1) of a centre point of the
source of fire (G) to the centre point (M) of the detection
area (E) of the second detection unit (D2) is determined
by means of the second detection unit (D2),
Appeal 2020-004506
Application 15/437,463

3

- in a fourth step, settling is brought about by means of the
extinguisher launcher (A) in its rotation (C) towards zero,
- in a fifth step, a width of a horizontal angular range is
determined, namely the width of the detected source of
fire (G), by means of the second detection unit (D2),
wherein
- the extinguisher launcher (A) is moved until it is
displaced with the centre point (M) of the detection
area (E) of the second detection unit (D2) from a
side of the source of fire (G) to another side of the
source of fire (G), or
- an angular range from a horizontal number of
image points of a thermal image describing the
width of the source of fire (G) is set in relation to a
number of all heat images available in a horizontal
direction, with an associated detection angle,
- in a sixth step, a coincidence of the centre point (M) of
the detection area (E) of the second detection unit (D2)
with the centre point of the extinguishing agent jet (F) is
detected, wherein
- when horizontal and vertical intervals (X) and (Y)
of an exit of an extinguishing agent of the
extinguisher launcher (A) towards the source of
fire (G) are known a tilting of the extinguisher
launcher (A) is calculated based on a trajectory
determined empirically a single time, inasmuch as
the extinguisher launcher (A) is set in such a way
that said launcher is aligned to a maximal
theoretically and necessary throwing width and the
throwing width deviation between an actual value
and a setpoint value from which a real throwing
parabola is calculated, is determined by a single
triggering of an extinguishing process, or
- when a horizontal (X) and vertical (Y) distance of
the exit of the extinguishing agent of the
extinguisher launcher (A) towards the source of
fire (G) is not known, the distance is measured by
triangulation and calculated by means of
Appeal 2020-004506
Application 15/437,463

4

trigonometric functions based on alignment angles
(α; β) of the first detection unit (D1) and the
second detection unit (D2) with respect to the
source of fire (G),
- in a seventh step, an adjustment is performed by means
of the movement of the extinguisher launcher (A) in its
tilting towards the center of the source of fire (G).
Appeal Br., Claim App. (filed Nov. 26, 2019).

Rejection
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by
Pillar et al. (US 7,451,028 B2, issued Nov. 11, 2008) (“Pillar”).

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites, in part:
- in a sixth step, a coincidence of the centre point (M) of
the detection area (E) of the second detection unit (D2)
with the centre point of the extinguishing agent jet (F) is
detected, wherein
- when horizontal and vertical intervals (X) and (Y)
of an exit of an extinguishing agent of the
extinguisher launcher (A) towards the source of
fire (G) are known a tilting of the extinguisher
launcher (A) is calculated based on a trajectory
determined empirically a single time, inasmuch as
the extinguisher launcher (A) is set in such a way
that said launcher is aligned to a maximal
theoretically and necessary throwing width and the
throwing width deviation between an actual value
and a setpoint value from which a real throwing
parabola is calculated, is determined by a single
triggering of an extinguishing process, or
- when a horizontal (X) and vertical (Y) distance of
the exit of the extinguishing agent of the
Appeal 2020-004506
Application 15/437,463

5

extinguisher launcher (A) towards the source of
fire (G) is not known, the distance is measured by
triangulation and calculated by means of
trigonometric functions based on alignment angles
(α; β) of the first detection unit (D1) and the
second detection unit (D2) with respect to the
source of fire (G).
Appeal Br., Claim App. In this sixth step, the claim sets forth two
conditions. The first condition is “when horizontal and vertical intervals (X)
and (Y) of an exit of an extinguishing agent of the extinguisher launcher (A)
towards the source of fire (G) are known.” Id. (emphasis added). The
second condition is “when a horizontal (X) and vertical (Y) distance of the
exit of the extinguishing agent of the extinguisher launcher (A) towards the
source of fire (G) is not known.” Id. (emphasis added).
The Examiner makes a finding that Pillar teaches the first condition.
See Non-Final Act. 6–7 (citing Pillar col. 30, ll. 45–52, col. 35, ll. 43–52,
col. 38, ll. 20–37). The Examiner does not find that Pillar teaches the
second condition. See id. at 7. In making the finding for the first condition
the Examiner explains that Pillar discloses that “the real throwing parabola is
understood that the velocity of the fire extinguishing agent is dispensed from
a horizontally orientated turret that will not travel downwardly as there is
sufficiently high velocity from the nozzle.” Id. at 6–7. Additionally, the
Examiner explains that “the set maximum throwing angle and the theoretical
throwing angle are the same angle, due to the sufficiently high velocity.” Id.
at 7. We agree with the Examiner. For instance, Pillar teaches:
It may be noted that conventional turrets dispense fire
extinguishing agent at a sufficiently high velocity such that it
may be assumed that fire extinguishing agent dispensed from a
horizontally oriented turret will not travel appreciably
downwardly before reaching the target. Therefore, fire
Appeal 2020-004506
Application 15/437,463

6

extinguishing agent reaches the hot spot if the turret 610 is
pointed at the hot spot.
Pillar col. 35, ll. 43–49 (emphasis omitted). In other words, Pillar discloses
that it is assumed that the extinguishing agent is dispensed in an ideal line,
rather than a parabolic course.
The Appellant’s method works from the opposite principle, i.e., that
extinguishing agent is never dispensed in an ideal line and always dispensed
in a parabolic course. See Spec. 11. More specifically, the Specification
describes:
Since the course of the extinguishing agent jet F, as soon as it is
applied at an angle to the earth attraction, has a parabolic course
which is related to the exit velocity of the extinguishing agent,
the application angle to the attracting force and the material
composition ([e.g.,] water/foam ratio), it always deviates from
this ideal line. This vertical deviation describes F2.
Id. This principle is represented in claim 1 in the first condition where the
claim recites, with emphasis added:
a tilting of the extinguisher launcher (A) is calculated based on
a trajectory determined empirically a single time, inasmuch as
the extinguisher launcher (A) is set in such a way that said
launcher is aligned to a maximal theoretically and necessary
throwing width and the throwing width deviation between an
actual value and a setpoint value from which a real throwing
parabola is calculated, is determined by a single triggering of
an extinguishing process.
Here, the claim requires a calculation for a real throwing parabola, which
includes a throwing width deviation between an actual value and a setpoint
value.
The Appellant argues that the support for the Examiner’s finding that
Pillar discloses the first condition is inadequate. See Appeal Br. 10. The
Appellant contends that “the cited locations in Pillar do not describe a tilting
Appeal 2020-004506
Application 15/437,463

7

of the extinguisher launcher based on a trajectory empirically determined a
single time and, for example, also does not describe the calculation of a real
throwing parabola determined by a single triggering of an extinguishing
process.” Id. (emphasis omitted). The Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
The Examiner’s rejection fails to adequately establish that Pillar
teaches the calculation for a real throwing parabola, which includes a
throwing width deviation between an actual value and a setpoint value, as
required by claim 1. See Non-Final Act. 6–7. Rather, the portion of Pillar
that the Examiner cites to seems to establish that a calculation for a real
throwing parabola is not necessary because it is assumed that the
extinguishing agent is dispensed in an ideal line. See Pillar col. 35, ll. 43–
49.
We note that in the Answer the Examiner responds to the Appellant’s
argument by finding that Pillar discloses a calculation of “the real throwing
parabola (which is the throwing arch of the fluid from nozzle to fire, as
speed of the fluid and the effect of gravity of the stream are known to effect
it, i.e. water doesn’t spray in a perfect straight line).” Ans. 11 (citing Pillar
col. 38, ll. 24–26). The Examiner’s response is not well-supported.
The Examiner’s response refers to the portion of Pillar that discloses
that nozzle 631 is aimed towards a region of interest (e.g., a hot spot or
center of a fire). See Pillar col. 38, ll. 21–28; see also id. at col. 33, ll. 58–
61, col. 34, ll. 50–52. More specifically, Pillar describes:
For example, if Ɵ1, Ɵ2, Ɵ3, and L are held constant, then a
feedback control loop which varies Ɵ5 (nozzle left/right) to
minimize ΔX and another feedback control loop which varies
Ɵ4 (nozzle up/down) to minimize ΔY may be employed. Thus,
the position and orientation of the nozzle 631 is adjusted such
that the nozzle 631 is aimed at the region of interest and, at the
Appeal 2020-004506
Application 15/437,463

8

same time, fire extinguishing agent is dispensed toward the
region of interest.
Pillar col. 38, ll. 21–28 (emphasis omitted). Pillar discloses that nozzle 631
is adjusted and aimed, but does not disclose that the nozzle is adjusted and
aimed by calculating a real throwing parabola, which includes a throwing
width deviation between an actual value and a setpoint value. Moreover, the
Examiner’s response appears to assume that the calculations described in
Pillar’s column 38 are not based on the assumption that the extinguishing
agent is dispensed in an ideal line. However, the Examiner fails to establish
why the calculations involved in tilting nozzle 631, as disclosed in
column 38, do not assume that that the extinguishing agent is dispensed in
an ideal line. Therefore, we determine that the Examiner fails to adequately
support the finding that Pillar, at column 38, lines 24–26, discloses a
calculation for a real throwing parabola as required by the first condition of
claim 1.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 102(a)(1) Pillar

1

REVERSED