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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on December 21, 2023 is hereby acknowledged and has been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the IDS.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0010] gives a brief description of what is depicted in Fig. 3; however, the paragraph then refers to the depiction of Fig. 3 as “...for use in a pump system of the type shown in Fig. 3”, which is confusing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 21, on line 9, “reduce” should be replaced with --reducing-- (grammar/syntax issue).
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 4-12, 14, 15 and 17-22 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.
Regarding claim 4, on line 8, the recitation regarding, “...operating the pre-connect pump of the main pump under the idle condition” is somewhat unclear. While each of claims 1 and 2 (from which claim 4 depends) refers to an “idle condition” of the “pre-connect pump”, no clear reference is made to an “idle condition” of the “main pump”.
Regarding claim 5, the term “large-diameter-hose pump”, “large diameter-hose inlet” and “large-diameter-hose outlet” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “large-diameter” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the metes and bounds of “large-diameter-hose pump”, “large diameter-hose inlet” and “large-diameter-hose outlet” are not clear so as to put the public on notice as to what does or does not infringe on these claim terms. It should be noted that each of claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 14 and 15 includes one or more references to “the large-diameter-hose pump”, and claim 10 also includes a reference to “the large-diameter-hose outlet”.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is recited so as to depend from itself, which renders the claim indefinite. It is important to note that claim 6 includes antecedent basis-type references to several elements which may or may not have proper antecedent basis, depending on from which claim that claim 6 was intended to depend. Thus, since it cannot be determined from which claim that claim 6 was intended to depend, it is not possible for this Office to indicate which recitations, if any, lack antecedent basis. It is also noted that it is not possible for this Office to make a claim dependency amendment recommendation for claim 6, as there does not appear to be a simple way to only amend the dependency of claim 6, whereby all antecedent basis-type issues are satisfied for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 7, on line 2, the recitation, “the main inlet” lacks antecedent basis.
Further, regarding claim 7, on line 8, the recitation, “the main pump” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, on line 4, the recitation, “the main pump” lacks antecedent basis. It should be noted that lines 2-5 of claim 15 (which depends directly from claim 14), also refer to “the main pump” in 3 separate occurrences.
Regarding claim 17, on lines 9-10, the introduction of “a pre-connect pump”, “a pre-connect inlet” and “a pre-connect outlet” render the claim unclear. What is the relationship between these introduced elements, as compared to the “a pre-connect pump”, “a pre-connect inlet” and “a pre-connect outlet” introduced on line 7 of claim 17? Are they not one and the same elements?
Regarding claim 20, the term “large-diameter-hose pump”, “large diameter-hose inlet” and “large-diameter-hose outlet” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “large-diameter” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the metes and bounds of “large-diameter-hose pump”, “large diameter-hose inlet” and “large-diameter-hose outlet” are not clear so as to put the public on notice as to what does or does not infringe on these claim terms. It should be noted that each of claims 21 and 22 includes multiple references to “the large-diameter-hose pump”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 13 and 16 are allowed.
Claims 4-12, 14 and 15 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.
Claims 17-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, alone or in combination, did not show or teach a firefighting apparatus, including a controller operatively connected to the pre-connect pump and configured to control the pre-connect pump under a standby condition selected to maintain the firefighting apparatus in a state of readiness to pump firefighting fluid, with the controller reducing a power-consumption rate of the pre-connect pump while maintaining the standby condition as compared to operating the pre-connect pump under an idle condition, and with the standby condition requiring pumping by at least one pump within the firefighting apparatus for maintenance of the standby condition, together with the other recited limitations as set forth in claim 1.
The prior art, alone or in combination, did not show or teach a method for operating electrically powered pumps of a firefighting apparatus as defined in the preamble of claim 17, with the method including the step of operating a controller, with the controller being operatively connected to the pre-connect pump having the pre-connect inlet and the pre-connect outlet, the controller controlling activation of the pre-connect pump under a standby condition selected to maintain the firefighting apparatus in a state or readiness to pump firefighting fluid, with the controller reducing a power-consumption rate of the pre-connect pump as compared to operating the pre-connect pump under an idle condition, while maintaining the standby condition, and with the standby condition requiring pumping by at least one of the electrically powered pumps for maintenance of the standby condition, as set forth in claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publications to Shively et al., Linsmeier et al., Wheeler et al. and Gee et al., and Foreign Patent Publications to Liu et al. and Wang et al., are cited as of interest.
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