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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-22 are cancelled. Claims 23-40 are new. Therefore, claims 23-40 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/29/2026 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the following:
Existing drawing objections
Existing claim objections
Existing 35 USC § 112(b) Rejections
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). No new matter should be entered.
A ventilation structure (Claim 23)
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 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:
“A ventilation structure” in line 4 of claim 23. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “structure” coupled with functional language “configured to: (i) not allow rainwater from above to pass therethrough; and (ii) allow air from below to escape upward therethrough” 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 does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “a ventilation structure” in line 4 of claim 23 (Para. 0072, 0095, 0122)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “a ventilation structure configured to: (i) not allow rainwater from above to pass therethrough; and (ii) allow air from below to escape upward therethrough;” in lines 4-6 of claim 23. A ventilation structure was recited in Para. 0072, 0095, 0122, where but does not describe a ventilation structure configured to (i) not allow rainwater from above to pass therethrough; and (ii) allow air from below to escape upward therethrough. The application merely states “A roof 18 having a well-known ventilation structure is installed on the top of the dispenser 14” (Para. 0072). The ventilation structure is not shown in any figure. Therefore, this limitation is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 24-40 depend from claim 23, therefore claims 24-40 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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.
Claim limitation “A ventilation structure” in line 4 of claim 23 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. A ventilation structure was recited in Para. 0072, 0095, 0122, of applicant’s specification but does the application does not describe a ventilation structure. The application merely states “A roof 18 having a well-known ventilation structure is installed on the top of the dispenser 14” (Para. 0072) without reciting any structure. 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.
Claims 24-40 depend from claim 23, therefore claims 24-40 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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.
(Note 1: cross-out limitations in this office action indicates the lack of explicit teaching in the primary reference; the limitation is addressed by the teaching reference(s) below).
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasusato (JP 2016112999) in view of Maassen (DE 2650274)
Regarding claim 23, Yasusato discloses a disaster prevention equipment (Fig. 7A & 14, all structural elements) for a hydrogen station (Para. 0001), the disaster prevention equipment comprising:
a dispenser (Fig. 7A & 14, 14) configured to supply hydrogen to a vehicle (Para. 0032);
a roof (Fig. 7a, 18e) on top of the dispenser, the roof including a ventilation structure (Fig. 7a, 58) configured to:
(i) not allow rainwater from above to pass therethrough; and (ii) allow air from below to escape upward therethrough (Para. 0066-0069);
a fire extinguishing head (Fig. 14, 48 located in A2) configured to spray a fire extinguishing agent in the protected area (Fig. 7A & 14, A2)
In another embodiment Yasusato teaches a disaster prevention equipment (Figs. 1 & 13, all structural features) comprising a partition sheet (Fig. 13, 62) configured to enclose one side of a protected area (Figs. 1 & 9, A2) including an installation area of the dispenser (Fig. 1 & 9, 14), and deploy downward from the roof when an abnormal event occurs (Para. 0101).
There it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the partition sheet configured to enclose one side of a protected area including an installation area of the dispenser, and deploy downward from the roof when an abnormal event occurs taught by the embodiment shown in Figs. 1 and 13 of Yasusato into the primary embodiment disclosed by Figs. Fig. 7A & 14 to prevent the spread of fire (Para. 0101 Yasusato), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Yasusato does not teach the partition sheets configured to enclose four sides of a protected area and the fire extinguisher configured to spray a fire extinguishing agent in the protected area (Fig. 7A & 14, A2) enclosed by the partition sheets.
However, Maassen teaches partition sheets (Fig. 2, {A,B,C & D}; Fig. 7, 2) configured to enclose four sides of a protected area (Fig. 2, area enclosed by {A,B,C & D}; Para. 0031-0034)
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 the teaching of the partition sheets configured to enclose four sides of a protected area taught by Maassen into the disaster prevention equipment taught by Ibaraki in view of Yasusato to provide comprehensive containment of a fire (Maassen – Para. 0062), with a reasonable expectation of success, which in combination the fire extinguisher configured to spray a fire extinguishing agent in the protected area enclosed by the partition sheets.
Regarding claim 24, Yasusato in view of Maassen teaches the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 23.
Yasusato further discloses wherein the abnormal event is one of a plurality of abnormal events including a hydrogen leak in the protected area and a fire in the protected area (Para. 0101); and
the fire extinguishing head is configured to spray the fire extinguishing agent in the protected area, upon the hydrogen leak in the protected area or the fire in the protected area (Para. 0103) .
Claim(s) 35-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasusato in view of Maassen and Ibaraki (JP 2018079704).
Regarding claim 35, Yasusato in view of Maassen teaches the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 23.
Yasusato in view of Maassen further teaches sheet unfolding devices (Yasusato – Fig. 13, 62) positioned on each of the four sides of the roof (Taught in combination.), respectively;
wherein each of the sheet unfolding devices is configured to: (i) hold one of the partition sheets in a non-deployed state; and (ii) upon the abnormal event, release the one of the partition sheets and deploy the one of the partition sheets downward from the roof (Yasusato – Para. 0100-0101).
Regarding claim 36, Yasusato in view of Maassen teaches the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 35, but does not teach wherein each of the partition sheets has fire retardant, fire resistance or heat resistance.
However, Ibaraki teaches a prior art comparable disaster prevention equipment (Fig. 1-3 & 9-10, all structural elements) comprising a partition sheet (Fig. 10, 29) that has fire resistance (Para. 0057. – “The sheet 29 is made of a water-absorbent fireproof cloth”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the partition sheet with a known function of partitioning, taught by Ibaraki, by performing a simple substitution with the partition sheets taught by Yasusato in view of Maassen yielding the predictable result of partitioning and preventing the spread of fire.
Regarding claim 37, Yasusato in view of Maassen and Ibaraki teaches the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 36.
Ibaraki further teaches wherein each of the partition sheets has a heat barrier property, a smoke barrier property or a flame barrier property (Para. 0057. – “The sheet 29 is made of a water-absorbent fireproof cloth”; A fireproof cloth has heat and flame barrier properties.).
Regarding claim 38, Yasusato in view of Maassen and Ibaraki teaches the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 35.
Ibaraki further teaches wherein each of the partition sheets is a cloth (Para. 0057. – “The sheet 29 is made of a water-absorbent fireproof cloth”).
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasusato in view of Maassen and Yasusato (JP 2016/088102), hereinafter ‘8102 and Graham (US 6,810,925).
Regarding claim 39, Yasusato in view of Maassen teaches the disaster prevention equipment according to claim 23.
Yasusato further discloses wherein the abnormal event includes a hydrogen leak (Para. 0101);
Yasusato in view of Maassen does not teach the fire extinguishing head is configured to spray, in the protected area: a leak hydrogen emission enhancing agent, upon the hydrogen leak in the protected area and when a leaked hydrogen concentration satisfies a third concentration condition; and at least one of the extinguishing agent or the leak hydrogen emission enhancing agent, upon the hydrogen leak in the protected area and when the leaked hydrogen concentration satisfies a fourth concentration condition which is higher than the third concentration condition.
However, ‘8102 teaches a prior art comparable disaster prevention facility (Fig. 5-6, all structural features) comprising a fire extinguishing head (Fig. 5-6, 50) is configured to spray, in a protected area (Fig. 6, A2):
a leak hydrogen emission enhancing agent (Para. 0013-0014 – “inert gas”), upon the hydrogen leak in the protected area and when a leaked hydrogen concentration satisfies a third concentration condition (Para. 0069 – “a hydrogen gas concentration equal to or higher than a predetermined concentration is detected”); and
at least one of the extinguishing agent or the leak hydrogen emission enhancing agent, upon the hydrogen leak in the protected area and when the leaked hydrogen concentration satisfies a 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%”).
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 ‘8102, into the disaster prevention equipment taught by Yasusato in view of Maassen 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.
Yasusato in view of Maassen and ‘8102 does not teach the fourth concentration 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 Yasusato in view of Maassen and ‘8102 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%.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25, 29, 31, and 40 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The most relevant prior art has been cited in the office action. The combination of the prior arts teaches various features as presented above which alone and in combination are not found to teach the limitations of claims 25, 29, 31, and 40 along with the base claim and intervening claims.
Claims 26-28 depend from claim 25 and would also be allowable.
Claim 30 depends from claim 29 and would also be allowable.
Claims 32-34 depends from claim 31 and would also be allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 on page 12 regarding providing a certified copy is persuasive and thus withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 on pages 14-18 regarding the rejections of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-22 have been cancelled and there is a new rejection outlined above.
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 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 July 10, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights