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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-14, 16, and 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/07/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are original. Claims 13-14, 16, and 20 are withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-21 are currently pending and claims 1-12, 15, 17-19, and 21-22 are been considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority based on this application being a CON of PCT/JP2020/047173. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/JP2020/047173 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1). See MPEP 214.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
A first fire extinguishing unit (Claim 1)
A second fire extinguishing unit (Claim 7, 9, 22)
A cooling unit (Claim 3, 9)
A unit (Claim 21)
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites the limitation " fire resistance, fire resistance or heat resistance'' in line 2 of claim 17. However, it is suggested to amend to - fire resistance or heat resistance -. Appropriate correction is required.
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 as follows:
“A partition unit” in line 2 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “that encloses and partitions a predetermined protected area” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A first fire extinguishing unit” in line 4 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “that sprays a fire extinguishing agent” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A cooling unit” in line 3 of claim 3, and line 3 of claim 9. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “that sprays a cooling agent” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A second fire extinguishing unit” in line 2 of claim 7. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “that sprays” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A unit” in line 2 of claim 21. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “that sprays either or both of a predetermined leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent or the fire extinguishing agent” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “a partition unit” in line 2 of claim 1, because para. 0043 of the applicant’s specification states “the partition unit normally holds a partition sheet.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a sheet”, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “a first fire extinguishing unit” in line 5 of claim 1, because para. 0149 of the applicant’s specification states “The fire extinguishing unit (first extinguishing unit) and the cooling unit are, in a broad sense, a concept that includes the water spray pump equipment 44 and associated equipment such as piping,” and para. 0129 states “a fire extinguishing head 52 is arranged substantially in the center of the ceiling surface (lower surface of the roof 18) of the dispenser 14, and fire extinguishing water supplied from the water spray pump equipment 44.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a spray head”, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “a cooling unit” in line 3 of claim 3, and line 3 of claim 9, because para. 0148 of the applicant’s specification states “The coolant spray head 62 and the on-off valve 64 constitute a cooling unit.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a spray head”, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “a second fire extinguishing unit” in line 2 of claim 7, line 5 of claim 9, and line 2 of claim 22 because para. 0172 of the applicant’s specification states “the on-off valve 72 and the outer fire extinguishing head 70 constitute a second fire extinguishing unit.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a fire extinguishing head”, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “a unit” in line 2 of claim 21 (Para. 0053).
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 2, 6, 12, 21 and 22 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 limitation “a unit” in line 2 of claim 21” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure for “a unit” was found in the applicant' s specification (Para. 0053). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 22 depends on claim 21, therefore claim 22 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “the fire extinguishing agent and the cooling agent are each used as fire extinguishing water” in lines 1-3 of claim 6. It is unclear as how the agents are used as fire extinguishing water. Are the agents sprayed like water, a composition of only water, or something else? The examiner will interpret this limitation as the fire extinguishing agent and the cooling agent comprise fire extinguishing water.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “the fire extinguishing agent and the cooling agent are each used as fire extinguishing water” in lines 1-3 of claim 12. It is unclear as how the agents are used as fire extinguishing water. Are the agents sprayed like water, a composition of only water, or something else? The examiner will interpret this limitation as “the fire extinguishing agent and the cooling agent comprise fire extinguishing water.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ibaraki (JP 2018079704).
Regarding claim 1, Ibaraki discloses a disaster prevention equipment (Fig. 1-3 & 9-10, all structural elements) for a hydrogen station (Para. 0001) comprising:
a partition unit ([Fig. 1-2, 5] & [Fig. 1-2 & 9-10, 20] & [Fig. 9-10, 28-29]) that encloses and partitions a predetermined protected area (Fig. 1 area enclosed by 5) including an installation area of a dispenser (Fig. 1, 4) that supplies hydrogen to a vehicle (Para. 0044) upon a predetermined abnormal event occurs (Para. 0057 – “When an abnormality is detected in the hydrogen station, the sheet 29 can be lowered from the storage section 28 to cover the surface of the barrier 20”);
a first fire extinguishing unit (Annotated Fig. 2) that sprays a fire extinguishing agent (Para. 0058 – “water”) in the protected section partitioned by the partition unit (Para. 0046 – “Then, water is sprayed from the spray head 21 toward the barrier 20, forming a water film 23 on the surface of the sheet 29 covering the surface of the barrier 20.”; Fig. 10 shows the first fire extinguishing unit (21) in the protected section and thus spraying the fire extinguishing agent in the protected section.)
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
600
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ibaraki discloses the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first fire extinguishing unit sprays a fire extinguishing agent in the predetermined protected area upon hydrogen leakage or fire occurs in the predetermined protected area as the predetermined abnormal event (Para. 0062 – “it is also possible to configure the sprinkler head 21 not to sprinkle water under normal circumstances, and to sprinkle water only when an abnormality such as a hydrogen leak, fire, or temperature rise in equipment is detected at the hydrogen station. Abnormalities at hydrogen stations can be detected by disposing a hydrogen leak sensor near the dispenser 4 and detecting hydrogen leaks with this hydrogen leak sensor.”).
Regarding claim 3, Ibaraki discloses the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 1, and further discloses the equipment further comprising: a cooling unit (Annotated Fig. 2 [Ibaraki] of claim 1) that sprays a cooling agent (Para. 0058 – “water”) to the partition unit that separates the predetermined protected area (Para. 0058 – “Then, water is sprayed from the spray head 21 toward the barrier 20, forming a water film 23 on the surface of the sheet 29 covering the surface of the barrier 20.”).
Regarding claim 4, Ibaraki discloses the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 3, and further discloses upon any of hydrogen leakage, fire, neighborhood fire, or neighborhood accident in the predetermined protected area occurs as the predetermined abnormal event, the first fire extinguishing unit sprays fire extinguishing agent in the predetermined protected area, and the cooling unit cools the partition unit by spraying the cooling agent (Para. 0062 – “it is also possible to configure the sprinkler head 21 not to sprinkle water under normal circumstances, and to sprinkle water only when an abnormality such as a hydrogen leak, fire, or temperature rise in equipment is detected at the hydrogen station. Abnormalities at hydrogen stations can be detected by disposing a hydrogen leak sensor near the dispenser 4 and detecting hydrogen leaks with this hydrogen leak sensor.”).
Regarding claim 5, Ibaraki discloses the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 3, and further discloses wherein upon any of hydrogen leakage, fire, neighborhood fire, or neighborhood accident in the predetermined protected area occurs as the predetermined abnormal event, the cooling unit sprays the cooling agent to cool the partition unit (Para. 0062 – “it is also possible to configure the sprinkler head 21 not to sprinkle water under normal circumstances, and to sprinkle water only when an abnormality such as a hydrogen leak, fire, or temperature rise in equipment is detected at the hydrogen station. Abnormalities at hydrogen stations can be detected by disposing a hydrogen leak sensor near the dispenser 4 and detecting hydrogen leaks with this hydrogen leak sensor.”).
Regarding claim 6, Ibaraki discloses the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 3, and further discloses wherein the fire extinguishing agent and the cooling agent are each used as fire extinguishing water (Para. 0058 – “Then, water is sprayed from the spray head 21 toward the barrier 20 , forming a water film 23 on the surface of the sheet 29 covering the surface of the barrier 20 .”).
Regarding claim 15, Ibaraki discloses the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the partition unit normally holds a partition sheet (Fig. 9-10, 29) in a non-deployed state (Fig. 9), and upon any of the hydrogen leakage, the compartment fire, the neighborhood fire, or the neighborhood accident occurs as the predetermined abnormal event (Para. 0057 – “When an abnormality is detected in the hydrogen station, the sheet 29 can be lowered from the storage section 28 to cover the surface of the barrier 20”; Para. 0062), the partition sheet release the hold and deploy downward (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 17, Ibaraki discloses the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 15, and further discloses, wherein the partition sheet has fire resistance (Para. 0057. – “The sheet 29 is made of a water-absorbent fireproof cloth”)
Regarding claim 18, Ibaraki discloses the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 17, and further discloses, wherein the partition sheet also has heat, smoke or flame barrier properties (Para. 0057. – “The sheet 29 is made of a water-absorbent fireproof cloth”; A fireproof cloth has heat and flame barrier properties.).
Regarding claim 19, Ibaraki discloses the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 15, and further discloses wherein the partition sheet is in the form of cloth (Para. 0057. – “The sheet 29 is made of a water-absorbent fireproof cloth”).
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) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibaraki.
Regarding claim 7, Ibaraki discloses the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 1.
Ibaraki teaches in another embodiment a second fire extinguishing unit (Annotated Fig. 4) that sprays a fire extinguishing agent outside the predetermined protected area partitioned by a barrier (Fig. 4, 20; Para. 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a second fire extinguishing unit that sprays a fire extinguishing agent outside the predetermined protected area partitioned by a barrier) as taught by Ibaraki, into the disaster prevention equipment disclosed by Ibaraki to increase the heat insulation properties in the event of a fire (Para. 0052) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire. Incorporation of this technique results in the second fire extinguishing unit that sprays a fire extinguishing agent outside the predetermined protected area partitioned by the partition unit.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image2.png
519
653
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Ibaraki teaches the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 7, and further teaches wherein upon any of hydrogen leakage, fire, neighborhood fire, or neighborhood accident in the predetermined protected area occurs as the predetermined abnormal event, the first fire extinguishing unit sprays extinguishing agent in the predetermined protected area, and the second fire extinguishing unit sprays extinguishing agent outside the predetermined protected area (Para. 0062 – “it is also possible to configure the sprinkler head 21 not to sprinkle water under normal circumstances, and to sprinkle water only when an abnormality such as a hydrogen leak, fire, or temperature rise in equipment is detected at the hydrogen station. Abnormalities at hydrogen stations can be detected by disposing a hydrogen leak sensor near the dispenser 4 and detecting hydrogen leaks with this hydrogen leak sensor.”).
Regarding claim 9, Ibaraki discloses the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 1, and further discloses the disaster prevention equipment comprising
a cooling unit (Annotated Fig. 2 [Ibaraki] of claim 1) that sprays a cooling agent (Para. 0058 – “water”) to the partition unit that separates the predetermined protected area (Para. 0058 – “Then, water is sprayed from the spray head 21 toward the barrier 20 , forming a water film 23 on the surface of the sheet 29 covering the surface of the barrier 20 .”).
Ibaraki teaches in another embodiment a second fire extinguishing unit (Annotated Fig. 4 [Ibaraki] of claim 7) that sprays a fire extinguishing agent outside the predetermined protected area partitioned by a barrier (Fig. 4, 20; Para. 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a second fire extinguishing unit that sprays a fire extinguishing agent outside the predetermined protected area partitioned by a barrier) as taught by Ibaraki, into the disaster prevention equipment disclosed by Ibaraki to increase the heat insulation properties in the event of a fire (Para. 0052) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire. Incorporation of this technique results in the second fire extinguishing unit that sprays a fire extinguishing agent outside the predetermined protected area partitioned by the partition unit.
Regarding claim 10, Ibaraki teaches the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 9, and further teaches wherein upon either a neighborhood fire or a neighborhood accident in the predetermined protected area occurs as the predetermined abnormal event, the second fire extinguishing unit sprays fire extinguishing agent on the outside of said predetermined protected area, and the cooling unit sprays cooling agent on the partition unit for cooling (Para. 0062 – “it is also possible to configure the sprinkler head 21 not to sprinkle water under normal circumstances, and to sprinkle water only when an abnormality such as a hydrogen leak, fire, or temperature rise in equipment is detected at the hydrogen station. Abnormalities at hydrogen stations can be detected by disposing a hydrogen leak sensor near the dispenser 4 and detecting hydrogen leaks with this hydrogen leak sensor.”).
Regarding claim 11, Ibaraki teaches the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 9, and further teaches wherein upon any of hydrogen leakage in the predetermined protected area, fire, neighborhood fire, or neighborhood accident occurs as the predetermined abnormal event, the first fire extinguishing unit sprays extinguishing agent in the predetermined protected area, and the second fire extinguishing unit sprays fire extinguishing agent outside the predetermined protected area, and the cooling unit sprays cooling agent on the partition unit for cooling (Para. 0062 – “it is also possible to configure the sprinkler head 21 not to sprinkle water under normal circumstances, and to sprinkle water only when an abnormality such as a hydrogen leak, fire, or temperature rise in equipment is detected at the hydrogen station. Abnormalities at hydrogen stations can be detected by disposing a hydrogen leak sensor near the dispenser 4 and detecting hydrogen leaks with this hydrogen leak sensor.”).
Regarding claim 12, Ibaraki teaches the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 9, and further teaches wherein the fire extinguishing agent and the cooling agent are each used as fire extinguishing water (Para. 0052 – “sprinkler head 21 may be provided on each side so that water can be sprayed on both sides of the barrier 20”; Para. 0058 – “Then, water is sprayed from the spray head 21 toward the barrier 20 , forming a water film 23 on the surface of the sheet 29 covering the surface of the barrier 20 .”; ).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibaraki in view of Yasusato (JP2016088102) and Graham (US 6,810,925).
Regarding claim 21, Ibaraki discloses the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 1.
Ibaraki does not teach wherein the first fire extinguishing unit has a unit that sprays either or both of a predetermined leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent or the fire extinguishing agent in the predetermined protected area, wherein upon hydrogen leakage in the predetermined protected area occurs as the predetermined abnormal event, the leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent is discharged from the first fire extinguishing unit into the predetermined protected area when the leaked hydrogen concentration satisfies a predetermined third concentration condition, and wherein upon the leaked hydrogen concentration satisfies a predetermined fourth concentration condition higher than the third concentration condition, the extinguishing agent or the extinguishing agent and the leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent are discharged from the first fire extinguishing unit into the predetermined protected area.
However, Yasusato teaches a prior art comparable disaster prevention facility (Fig. 5-6, all structural features) comprising a first fire extinguishing unit (Fig. 5-6, 50) has a unit (Fig. 5, 54b) that sprays either or both of a predetermined leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent (Para. 0013-0014 – “inert gas”) in the predetermined protected area, or the fire extinguishing agent (Para. 0013-0014 – “water”) in a predetermined protected area (Fig. 6, A2; Para. 0013-0014, 0069)
wherein upon hydrogen leakage in the predetermined protected area occurs as the predetermined abnormal event (Para. 0069 – “a hydrogen gas concentration equal to or higher than a predetermined concentration is detected”), and
wherein upon the leaked hydrogen concentration satisfies a predetermined fourth concentration condition (Para. 0048 –“ the hydrogen detector 38 detects that the hydrogen gas concentration has exceeded a predetermined threshold concentration (for example, 1/4 of the lower explosive limit) corresponding to an ignition concentration of 4%”) the extinguishing agent and the leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent are discharged from the first fire extinguishing unit into the predetermined protected area (Para. 0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a first fire extinguishing unit has a unit that sprays either or both of a predetermined leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent or the fire extinguishing agent in the predetermined protected area, wherein upon hydrogen leakage in the predetermined protected area occurs as the predetermined abnormal event, and wherein upon the leaked hydrogen concentration satisfies a predetermined fourth concentration condition, the extinguishing agent or the extinguishing agent and the leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent are discharged from the first fire extinguishing unit into the predetermined protected area.) as taught by Yasusato, into the disaster prevention equipment disclosed by Ibaraki to suppresses the radiant heat caused by the fire and prevent the fire from spreading (Para. 0029) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire.
Ibaraki in view of Yasusato does not teach the leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent is discharged from the first fire extinguishing unit into the predetermined protected area when the leaked hydrogen concentration satisfies a predetermined third concentration and the predetermined fourth concentration condition is higher than the third concentration condition.
However, Graham teaches a prior art comparable hydrogen fueling station (Fig. 1-6, all structural elements) comprising a leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent (Col. 4: Ln. 63 to Col. 5: Ln. 6 – “air”) is discharged into the predetermined protected area (Col. 4: Ln. 63 to Col. 5: Ln. 6 – “the leaked hydrogen concentration inside the station 2”) when the leaked hydrogen concentration satisfies a predetermined third concentration (Col. 4: Ln. 63 to Col. 5: Ln. 6 – “below a selected percentage of the lower flammability limit (LFL) of hydrogen, which is 4% hydrogen in air”; Col. 8: Ln. 47-51; Table 1 – “Maximum desired Hydrogen concentration 10%”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent is discharged into the predetermined protected area when the leaked hydrogen concentration satisfies a predetermined third concentration) as taught by Graham, into the disaster prevention equipment taught by Ibaraki in view of Yasusato to reduce the dangers associated with fires and explosions caused by a combination of leaked hydrogen gas and an ignition source (Col. 8: Ln. 44-47) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire.
Additionally, the combined references teach the predetermined fourth concentration condition (Para. 0048 of Yasusato teaches a hydrogen concentration of 4%.) is higher than the third concentration condition (Col. 4: Ln. 63 to Col. 5: Ln. 6 of Graham teaches that the third concentration is a percentage of the LFL of hydrogen which is 4% and table 1 further describes the concentration of 10% of LFL , which is equal to a 0.4%.).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when faced with the teachings of Yasusato namely, the aqueous solution and nitrogen gas are supplied to separate head groups through separate pipes and sprayed, but a mixer may be provided to mix the aqueous solution and nitrogen gas, and the resulting mixed gas may be supplied to the head group of the aqueous solution spraying device 50 and sprayed (para. 0089), and thus discharging the leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent from the first fire extinguishing unit into the predetermined protected area is well within the grasp of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 22, Ibaraki in view of Yasusato and Graham teaches the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 1.
Ibaraki teaches in another embodiment a second fire extinguishing unit (Annotated Fig. 4 [Ibaraki] of claim 7) that sprays a fire extinguishing agent outside the predetermined protected area partitioned by a barrier (Fig. 4, 20; Para. 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a second fire extinguishing unit that sprays a fire extinguishing agent outside the predetermined protected area partitioned by a barrier) as taught by Ibaraki, into the disaster prevention equipment disclosed by Ibaraki to increase the heat insulation properties in the event of a fire (Para. 0052) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire. Incorporation of this technique results in the second fire extinguishing unit that sprays a fire extinguishing agent outside the predetermined protected area partitioned by the partition unit.
Yasusato further teaches a second fire extinguishing unit (Fig. 5-6, 50) that sprays either one or both of the leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent and the fire extinguishing agent (Para. 0013-0014 – “inert gas”) and the fire extinguishing agent.
wherein upon hydrogen leakage in the predetermined protected area occurs as the predetermined abnormal event (Para. 0069 – “a hydrogen gas concentration equal to or higher than a predetermined concentration is detected”), and
wherein upon the leakage hydrogen concentration satisfies a predetermined fourth concentration condition (Para. 0048 –“ the hydrogen detector 38 detects that the hydrogen gas concentration has exceeded a predetermined threshold concentration (for example, 1/4 of the lower explosive limit) corresponding to an ignition concentration of 4%”), the fire extinguishing agent or the extinguishing agent and the leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent are sprayed outside the predetermined protected area from the second fire extinguishing unit (Para. 0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a second fire extinguishing unit that sprays either one or both of the leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent and the fire extinguishing agent and the fire extinguishing agent wherein upon hydrogen leakage in the predetermined protected area occurs as the predetermined abnormal event and wherein upon the leakage hydrogen concentration satisfies a predetermined fourth concentration condition the fire extinguishing agent or the extinguishing agent and the leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent are sprayed outside the predetermined protected area from the second fire extinguishing unit) as taught by Yasusato, into the disaster prevention equipment disclosed by Ibaraki to suppresses the radiant heat caused by the fire and prevent the fire from spreading (Para. 0029) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire. Incorporation of this technique into the second fire extinguishing unit taught by Ibaraki yields the predictable result of the second fire extinguishing unit spraying outside the predetermined protected area partitioned by the partition unit.
Graham further teaches a leaked hydrogen concentration satisfies a predetermined third concentration condition (Col. 4: Ln. 63 to Col. 5: Ln. 6 – “below a selected percentage of the lower flammability limit (LFL) of hydrogen, which is 4% hydrogen in air”; Col. 8: Ln. 47-51; Table 1 – “Maximum desired Hydrogen concentration 10%”), the leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent (Col. 4: Ln. 63 to Col. 5: Ln. 6 – “air”) is discharged to an outside of the predetermined protected area (Col. 4: Ln. 63 to Col. 5: Ln. 6 – “an air flow path inside the station 2 extends from the air inlet 24 to the ventilation air outlet 28 to discharge leaked hydrogen away from the station 2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a leaked hydrogen concentration satisfies a predetermined third concentration condition, the leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent is discharged to an outside of the predetermined protected area)as taught by Graham, into the disaster prevention equipment taught by Ibaraki in view of Yasusato and Graham to reduce the dangers associated with fires and explosions caused by a combination of leaked hydrogen gas and an ignition source (Col. 8: Ln. 44-47) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire.
Additionally, the combined references teach the predetermined fourth concentration condition (Para. 0048 of Yasusato teaches a hydrogen concentration of 4%.) is higher than the third concentration condition (Col. 4: Ln. 63 to Col. 5: Ln. 6 of Graham teaches that the third concentration is a percentage of the LFL of hydrogen which is 4% and table 1 further describes the concentration of 10% of LFL , which is equal to a 0.4%.).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when faced with the teachings of Yasusato namely, the aqueous solution and nitrogen gas are supplied to separate head groups through separate pipes and sprayed, but a mixer may be provided to mix the aqueous solution and nitrogen gas, and the resulting mixed gas may be supplied to the head group of the aqueous solution spraying device 50 and sprayed (para. 0089), and thus discharging the leakage hydrogen emission enhancing agent from the second fire extinguishing unit into the predetermined protected area is well within the grasp of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752
January 30, 2026
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752