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 amendment filed 30 October 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-14, 16, and 19 are pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 4 June 2025; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6 of claim 1, insert --a—between “comprises” and “tube-system”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 10, 16, and 19 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.
Claim 3 is rejected as being indefinite because it depends from claim 2, which has been canceled.
Claim 10 recites the limitation that the inner liner is comprised of ceramic tiles; however, claim 10 depends from claim 9, which requires the inner liner to be comprised of steel. It is unclear how the inner liner can be comprised of both ceramic tiles and steel; therefore, claim 10 is rejected as being indefinite.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a single door which is a loading ramp" in lines 2-3, but this structure is already recited in claim 1, from which claim 16 depends. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 16 requires an additional single door which is a loading ramp, or if it is referring to the structure already recited.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "an opening on a roof" in line 3, but this structure is already recited in claim 1, from which claim 16 depends. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 19 requires an additional opening and roof, or if it is referring to the structure already recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 2023/0124540) in view of Tang (CN 110292728).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses a hazard containment system (fig. 1) comprising at least an outer liner (212) and an inner liner (214), a single door (300), and a roof (200, see fig. 2), wherein the single door is also a loading ramp (par. 147) forming a leak proof seal (222/320) with the inner liner (par. 40), and further wherein there is a gap between the inner and outer liners (fig. 2 – space in which 216 is disposed).
Lim does not disclose wherein the roof comprises an opening and the gap further comprises a tube-system in the gap.
Tang teaches a hazard containment system (1) comprising at least an outer liner (30/40), a single door (50), and a roof (20), wherein the roof further comprises an opening (201, see fig. 3, 4) and a tube-system (202).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof of the hazard containment system of Lim to further comprise an opening, as taught by Tang, since this would allow a sprinkler to be placed inside the container to distribute a fire extinguishant. Further, it would have been obvious to modify Lim to arrange a tube-system in the gap since this would provide a fire extinguishant to the opening, as also taught by Tang, and arranging it in the gap would protect the tube-system from damage and hide it within the walls for improved aesthetics.
Regarding claim 3, Lim in view of Tang discloses the hazard containment system described regarding claim 2, and further wherein the outer liner is comprised of steel (par. 47).
Regarding claim 8, Lim in view of Tang discloses the hazard containment system described regarding claim 1, and Tang further teaches wherein the tube system is adapted to distribute fire retardant gas or foam into the inner liner (p. 4, par. 19; fig. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 9, Lim in view of Tang discloses the hazard containment system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the inner liner is comprised of steel (par. 47).
Regarding claim 11, Lim in view of Tang discloses the hazard containment system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the outer liner and inner liner are comprised of steel (par. 47).
Claims 6, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Tang, and further in view of Robison (US 2018/0375079).
Regarding claim 6, Lim in view of Tang discloses the hazard containment system described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the inner liner is comprised of ceramic tiles.
Robison teaches a hazard containment system (60) comprising an outer layer (61/62) and an interior layer (63/64/72/73), wherein the inner liner is comprised of ceramic tiles.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the inner liner from ceramic tiles, as taught by Robison, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 10, Lim in view of Tang discloses the hazard containment system described regarding claim 9, but not further wherein the inner liner is comprised of ceramic tiles.
Robison teaches a hazard containment system (60) comprising an outer layer (61/62) and an interior layer (63/64/72/73), wherein the inner liner is comprised of ceramic tiles.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the inner liner from ceramic tiles, as taught by Robison, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 12, Lim in view of Tang discloses the hazard containment system described regarding claim 7, and further wherein the outer liner is comprised of steel (par. 47), but not further wherein the inner liner is comprised of ceramic tiles.
Robison teaches a hazard containment system (60) comprising an outer layer (61/62) and an interior layer (63/64/72/73), wherein the inner liner is comprised of ceramic tiles.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the inner liner from ceramic tiles, as taught by Robison, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Tang, and further in view of Hays et al. (US 11,715,963).
Regarding claim 13, Lim in view of Tang discloses the hazard containment system described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the inner liner is removable from the outer liner.
Hays teaches a hazard containment system (100) comprising at least an outer liner (fig. 1A – comprised of 101/102) and an inner liner (200, see also fig. 1D), and further wherein the inner liner is removable from the outer liner (col. 6, ln. 11-13).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the containment system of Lim in view of Tang such that the inner liner is removable from the outer liner, as taught by Hays, since this allows it to be removed if it experiences a fire event (Hays – col. 6, ln. 13).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Tang and Robison, and further in view of Hays.
Regarding claim 14, Lim in view of Tang and Robison discloses the hazard containment system described regarding claim 12, but not further wherein the inner liner is removable from the outer liner.
Hays teaches a hazard containment system (100) comprising at least an outer liner (fig. 1A – comprised of 101/102) and an inner liner (200, see also fig. 1D), and further wherein the inner liner is removable from the outer liner (col. 6, ln. 11-13).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the containment system of Lim in view of Tang and Robison such that the inner liner is removable from the outer liner, as taught by Hays, since this allows it to be removed if it experiences a fire event (Hays – col. 6, ln. 13).
Regarding claim 16, Lim in view of Tang, Robison, and Hays discloses the hazard containment system described regarding claim 14, and further comprising a single door which is a loading ramp (par. 17, 39).
Claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Tang, and further in view of Koreis et al. (US 2017/0361139).
Lim in view of Tang discloses the hazard containment system described regarding claim 1, but not further comprising an adapter to which a fire hose may be connected and an opening on the roof of the containment system.
Koreis teaches a hazard containment system (100) comprising at least an outer liner (104) and an inner liner (108), and further comprising an adapter (133) to which a fire hose (126) may be connected (par. 25; fig. 2) and an opening on the roof of the containment system (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the containment system of Lim in view of Tang to further comprise an adapter to which a fire hose may be connected and an opening on the roof of the containment system, as taught by Koreis, since this was known to provide a supply of fire extinguishant to the tube-system of the containment system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752