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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s reply filed June 17, 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1, 5 and 7-11 remain pending and are addressed below.
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.
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:
“sensing unit” in claim 1;
“control unit” in claim 1;
“water mist unit” in claim 10;
“first sensing unit” in claim 11; and
“second sensing unit” in claim 11.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, on lines 14-15, the recitation, “the vehicle bottom surface of the lower part of the parking area” lacks antecedent basis and is generally unclear. How can a bottom surface of a vehicle (which doesn’t even make up a part of the claimed “firefighting system”) be considered to be part of the “lower part of the parking area”?
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 1, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qian et al., Foreign Patent Publication No. CN-114470563-A. For locations within the written description of Qian et al. cited below, please refer to the English language translation of the Qian et al. publication, included herewith.
As to claim 1, Qian (see Fig. 1) shows a firefighting system comprising: a fluid unit (inclusive of “22” and “23”) arranged adjacent to a lower part of a parking area (1), comprising a pipeline (23) extending upward from a bottom surface of a rear area of a parking space (a “rear area of a parking space” can be chosen arbitrarily, depending on, for example, the orientation of a chosen vehicle parked in the parking area, and thus the upwardly extending location of the portion of “23” in Fig. 1 of Qian, as applied above, can reasonably apply to this recitation) of the parking area (the vertical portion of “23” shown in Fig. 1 clearly extends upward from a bottom surface of the shown parking area) and a spray nozzle (22) arranged at an extended end of the pipeline (spray nozzle “22” is shown as being connected at the outlet end of a horizontally-directed extension from the vertical portion of “23”; see again, Fig. 1), wherein the pipeline is bent into an L-shape at a part protruding from the bottom surface (the vertical portion of “23”, and the interface between the vertical portion of “23” and the horizontally-directed extension discussed above, is shown as a part which protrudes from the bottom surface of the parking space; and this part is shown to be set at a substantially 90 degree angle, which renders this portion of the pipeline as bent into an L-shape; see again, Fig. 1) to make the spray nozzle parallel to a vehicle bottom surface (as shown in Fig. 1, it is clear that the L-shaped pipeline portion renders the spray nozzle “22” directed parallel to a bottom surface of any chosen vehicle parked in the shown parking space); a sensing unit (any one or more of “9”, “10” and “24”; see again, Fig. 1; and see the last paragraph on page 11 and the last paragraph on page 12) configured to sense an ambient temperature of the parking area, and to generate a temperature information; and a control unit (6; see again Fig. 1; and see the last paragraph on page 12, through the first paragraph on page 14) electrically connected with the sensing unit and the fluid unit; wherein, when the temperature information is greater than or equal to a first threshold temperature, the control unit is configured to control the fluid unit to output a fluid to the lower part of the parking area (see again, Fig. 1; and see again, the last paragraph on page 12, through the first paragraph on page 14), wherein the spray nozzle faces the lower part of the parking space of the parking area, and the spray nozzle is configured to output the fluid along the vehicle bottom surface (this can be entirely dependent on, for example, the characteristics of a vehicle suspension and/or tire sizes which, at least in part, will define a particular ground clearance of a chosen vehicle to be parked in the parking space, and thus this recitation cannot patentably distinguish the claimed “firefighting system”, which does not require a specific vehicle having a limited bottom surface height) in a direction parallel to the vehicle bottom surface (see again, Fig. 1). As to the recitation, “wherein the fluid unit is arranged outside of a front or a rear of an electric vehicle parked on the parking space of the parking area and the spray nozzle outputs the fluid from outside of the electric vehicle toward a direction of the electric vehicle”, it should be noted that such is merely and wholly dependent on the type of vehicle (e.g. an “electric vehicle”) chosen to be parked in the parking area, as well as how the vehicle is chosen to be parked in the parking area, which does not alter the scope of the claimed “firefighting system”. Thus, the aforementioned recitation cannot be considered to distinguish the claim from the applied prior art, which clearly meets all of the structural and functional limitations of the claim. Regardless, as shown in the exemplary arrangement in Fig. 1 of Qian, the fluid unit is arranged outside of a front or a rear of an electric vehicle (21) parked on the parking area (1) and the spray nozzle (22) outputs the fluid from outside of the electric vehicle toward a direction of the electric vehicle. As to the recitation, “wherein the spray nozzle is configured to spray the fluid from the front to the rear of the electric vehicle, or from the rear to the front of the vehicle, so as to evenly spray the fluid to the electric vehicle parked in the parking space of the parking area”; similarly to the issues discussed above, such can be merely dependent upon an orientation of a chosen vehicle parked in the parking area, and thus this recitation cannot patentably distinguish the claim from the applied prior art, particularly since there is nothing which would preclude one from parking a chosen vehicle in a position which is rotated 90 degrees in either direction from the position of the vehicle as shown in Fig. 1 of Qian. As to the recitation, “wherein when the temperature information is greater than or equal to a second threshold temperature, and less than or equal to the first threshold temperature, the control unit is configured to output a warning message”; it is first noted that this recitation is stated so broadly that the “temperature information” can equate to a single temperature which results in the control unit affecting a warning message output. More specifically, the “second threshold temperature” is recited in a manner which is inclusive of it being “equal to the first threshold temperature”. To that end, at least pages 9-14 of Qian describe that threshold temperatures meeting or exceeding particular, predetermined thresholds, will affect a warning message from (at least) the “evacuation broadcast” speaker (17). Also, it should be noted that since the control unit (6) of Qian is expressly disclosed as being “intelligent” and “automatic”, and that it is capable of storing, processing and analyzing data, then such implies that the control unit includes the capability for programming any number of desired threshold temperatures for affecting the functions of the firefighting system. As to the recitation, “wherein when the temperature information is greater than or equal to the first threshold temperature, the control unit is configured to output the warning message, and configured to control the fluid unit to output the fluid”; see again, pages 9-14 of Qian.
As to claim 7, Qian shows the firefighting system of claim 1, and further, Qian shows and describes the control unit as comprising a speaker (“fire-fighting alarm mechanism comprises a fire-fighting evacuation broadcast 17”; see Fig. 1; and see: the last paragraph on page 9, through the first paragraph on page 10, the first paragraph on page 12, and claim 1 on page 15), wherein the speaker is configured to generate a warning sound.
As to claim 11, Qian shows the firefighting system of claim 1, and further, Qian discloses the system, wherein the sensing unit comprises: a first sensing unit (for example, “24”) configured to sense a first ambient temperature of the parking area, and configured to generate a first temperature information; and a second sensing unit (for example, either of “9” and “10”) configured to sense a second ambient temperature of the parking area, and configured to generate a second temperature information. As to the recitation, “wherein, the second ambient temperature is greater than the first ambient temperature”, such does not distinguish the claim from the applied prior art, since any of the sensing units shown and described by Qian would be capable of sensing a practically infinite number of ambient temperatures, and the “second ambient temperature” can arbitrarily be chosen such that it is greater than an arbitrarily chosen “first ambient temperature”.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian et al. For locations within the written description of Qian et al. cited below, please refer to the English language translation of the Qian et al. publication, included herewith.
As to claim 5, Qian shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1, and further, Qian discloses that the spray nozzle (22) of the fluid unit is electrically-controlled to selectively spray fluid under control of the control unit, and Qian also essentially discloses that all of the firefighting spray nozzles (inclusive of “8”, “22” and “25”, which are each located within different positions of the parking area) of the system are individually electrically-controlled by the control unit for selective fluid spraying, depending on the parameters of a detected fire event relative to a parked electric vehicle (see the last paragraph on page 13, which continues onto page 14). Thus, with such individual control, it is clearly implied that each of the firefighting spray nozzles includes a dedicated, electrically-actuated valve element. However, while it is extremely likely that the individual electric-type control of the spraying from (at least) spray nozzle (22) is facilitated by a solenoid valve, Qian does not expressly state such.
In the Office action mailed March 20, 2026, the Examiner took Official Notice with respect to the obviousness of modifying the prior art device of Qian to include the aforementioned feature(s) which was/were not expressly disclosed by Qian. Since Applicant has not traversed the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, as set forth in paragraph 13 of the aforementioned Office Action, the Examiner is now officially and clearly indicating that such a modification is admitted to be common or well-known in the art, and is therefore taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03 (C)
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian et al., in view of Jeon, Foreign Patent Publication No. KR-20230025546-A. For locations within the written descriptions of Qian et al. and Jeon cited below, please refer to the English language translations of the Qian et al. and Jeon publications, included herewith.
As to claim 8, Qian shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1, and further, as discussed above with respect to claim 7, the control unit of Qian includes an alarm element comprising a speaker (17) which is configured to generate a warning sound. However, while it is entirely possible that the control unit of Qian also includes a warning light which is configured to generate a warning light effect, as such was common and well-known in the art as being combined with the generation of a warning sound during a fire event, Qian is silent as to such inclusion.
Jeon shows a firefighting system (see Figs. 1-6) for controlling and suppressing a fire potentially resulting during the charging of an electric vehicle which is parked in a parking area (which is similar to the overall function and effect of the Qian system), with the Jeon system also including a fluid unit (400), a sensing unit (200, 300), and a control unit (100, 110, 160) which controls the functions of the system. Also, the control unit of Jeon is disclosed so as to include a speaker (130) which is configured to generate a warning sound (see the third and fourth paragraphs on page 7 of Jeon), which is also similar to the system of Qian. Further, Jeon teaches the control unit as comprising a warning light (see again, the third and fourth paragraphs on page 7), in replacement of, or in addition to, the speaker, in order to generate a warning light effect during a fire event. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a warning light, as taught by Jeon, as a replacement of, or in addition to, the speaker of the control unit of the Qian system, in order to provide a more noticeable fire warning effect to any people who may be in the immediate area of a detected fire event.
As to claim 9, Qian shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1, and further, as previously noted with respect to claim 1, the control unit of Qian is “intelligent” and “automatic”, and is capable of storing, processing and analyzing data (see the last paragraph on page 13, through the first paragraph on page 14). Thus, it is extremely likely that the control unit of Qian includes some kind of control interface, as such expressly-disclosed functions would require some kind of data programming input in order to be “intelligent” and “automatic”, and be capable of storing, processing and analyzing data. However, Qian is silent as to such a control interface.
Jeon teaches inclusion of a control interface (120) with the corresponding control unit, which includes a “touch-type display unit” (see the second paragraph on page 7 of Jeon). Therefore, in the extremely unlikely event that the control unit of Qian does not include a control interface, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a control interface, as taught by Jeon, with the control unit of the Qian system, thereby permitting data programming of the control unit, so as to make the functions of the firefighting system “intelligent” and “automatic”, which is required by the control unit of Qian.
As to claim 10, Qian shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1, and further, the system of Qian is shown and described to include at least one water spray unit (8) electrically connected to the control unit, and arranged on an upper part of the parking area (see Fig. 1; and see the first paragraph on page 14). However, while it is entirely possible that the water spray unit (8) of Qian is reasonably capable of releasing a “mist”, whereby water spray unit (8) is a “water mist unit”, Qian is silent as to such.
The firefighting system of Jeon, discussed above, teaches inclusion of a water spray unit (430) operably connected to the corresponding control unit and arranged on an upper part of the corresponding parking area, wherein the water spray unit releases water mist (mist particles emanating from “430” are clearly implied, based on the depiction of the tiny water particles shown in Figs. 3-5 of Jeon). Therefore, in the unlikely event that the upper-part-arranged water spray nozzle of Qian does not reasonably produce a water mist, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to either replace the upper-part-arranged water spray nozzle of the Qian system with a water mist-producing unit, as taught by Jeon, or alternatively, to add a water mist unit, as taught by Jeon, to the firefighting system of Qian, thereby expanding the fire suppression capabilities of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-9 of the “Remarks” portion of the response filed June 17, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the aforementioned pages of arguments, there are only two actual arguments corresponding to claim recitations which Applicant believes patentably distinguish claim 1 from the prior art to Qian et al. (CN-114470563-A). The first argument essentially purports that since nozzle “22” of Qian is “disposed in the middle of the buried fire-extinguishing agent pipeline 23 rather than at an end thereof”, then Qian cannot meet claim 1. With respect to this argument, it is noted that claim 1 recites that the “fluid unit” is “arranged adjacent to a lower part of a parking area” and comprises, “a pipeline extending upward from a bottom surface of a rear end of a parking space of the parking area and a spray nozzle arranged at an extended end of the pipeline”. It is this Office’s position that the disposition of the spray nozzle of Qian “in the middle of the buried fire-extinguishing agent pipeline 23” does not preclude anticipation of the limitations recited in claim 1, as articulated above in paragraph 9 of the instant Office action. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. The second argument purports that the “pipeline 23” of Qian “is bent into an L-shape at a portion below the ground surface, whereas in the present application, the pipeline is bent into an L-shape at a portion protruding above the ground surface...” Regarding this assertion, while Applicant is correct that the pipeline of Qian is bent into an L-shape at a portion below the ground surface, the pipeline is also shown as being bent into an L-shape at a portion protruding above the ground surface, as was explained in paragraph 11 of the Office action mailed March 20, 2026, and as is explained again in paragraph 9 of the instant Office action. In essence, the spray nozzle (at “22” of Qian) is shown as being connected at the outlet end of a horizontally-directed extension from the vertical portion of “23”, and the interface between the vertical portion of “23” and this horizontally-directed extension is shown as a part which protrudes from the bottom surface of the parking space, and this part is shown to be set at a substantially 90 degree angle, which renders this portion of the pipeline as reasonably being bent into an L-shape. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights