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
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/25/25.
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 device components must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The figure and reference numbers in the specification appear to reference drawings which are not included.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Payne (WO0123261).
Regarding Claim 1, Payne discloses a device 4 (Figure 1) for securely storing liquid hazardous material, comprising: a housing which is designed to receive a storage container for the liquid hazardous material 4 (Figure 1), the housing comprising: a rear protective wall which is designed to protect a rear side of the storage container (Figure 1), a first lateral protective wall and a second lateral protective wall which are designed to protect two side walls of the storage container (Figure 1), a front protective wall which is designed to protect a front side of the storage container (Figure 1); and a fluid-permeable platform which is designed as a supporting surface for the storage container within the device (page 15; lines 28-31); a collection region (containment pan, page 15, lines 28-31) which is fluidically connected to an inner region of the housing (Figure 1); characterized in that wherein the front protective wall is designed to be arranged on the storage container in order to form the housing together with the rear protective wall, the first lateral protective wall, the second lateral protective wall, and the fluid-permeable platform when the storage container is received in the device (Figure 1), and in that wherein the front protective wall comprises a transport receiving means (page 11, line 14) which is designed to cooperate with a transport means for transporting the storage container.
Regarding Claim 6, Payne discloses one or more from among the rear protective wall, the first side protective wall, the second side protective wall, the front protective wall, and the fluid- permeable platform are made of a non-combustible material (steel; page 9, lines 29-31).
Regarding Claim 7, Payne discloses at least one first flame arrester, the at least one first flame arrester being arranged between the fluid-permeable platform and the collection region (page 15, lines 28-31).
Regarding Claim 8, Payne discloses at least one second flame arrester, the at least one second flame arrester being arranged between the fluid-permeable platform and the at least one discharge surface (containment pan, page 15, lines 28-31).
Regarding Claim 9, Payne discloses at least one from among the first flame arrester or the second flame arrester is formed as a siphon and/or as a grate (page 15, lines 28-31).
Regarding Claim 10, Payne discloses the collection region has a first intake volume (VAU), the first intake volume (VAU) being determined as VAU = VL + VS, where VL corresponds to a storage volume of the storage container and VS corresponds to a specified safety volume (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Payne discloses a storage system for storing liquid hazardous material, comprising: a plurality of devices according to at least one of a plurality of devices according to at least one of a storage assembly which is designed to receive the plurality of devices for storage (Figure 1).
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne (WO0123261) in view of P&D Systemtechnik GMBH (DE9212985).
Regarding Claims 2-4, Payne teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for at least one discharge surface which is designed to provide at least part of a fluid-conducting connection between the inner region of the housing and the collection region; at least one fluid conduit system which is designed to provide at least part of a fluid-conducting connection between the inner region of the housing and the collection region; and at least one discharge surface has a slope in the direction of the fluid conduit system in order to channel a fluid in the direction of the fluid conduit system. However, P&D Systemtechnik GMBH teaches at least one discharge surface which is designed to provide at least part of a fluid-conducting connection between the inner region of the housing and the collection region 17 (Figure 3); at least one fluid conduit system which is designed to provide at least part of a fluid-conducting connection between the inner region of the housing and the collection region (lower portion 17, figure 3); and at least one discharge surface has a slope in the direction of the fluid conduit system in order to channel a fluid in the direction of the fluid conduit system (angled portion of 17, Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Payne to include the above, as taught by P&D Systemtechnik GMBH, in order to easily direct the fluid to the collection region.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne (WO0123261) in view of Johnston (U.S. Pub. No. 20160318721).
Regarding Claim 5, Payne teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the front protective wall further comprises at least one side guard which is designed to extend along at least one side surface of the storage container. However, Johnston teaches the front protective wall further comprises at least one side guard which is designed to extend along at least one side surface of the storage container 106a (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Payne to include the above, as taught by Johnston, in order to add additional protection to the storage container.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne (WO0123261) in view of Metscher (DE3941007).
Regarding Claim 11, Payne teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for at least one discharge surface has a second intake volume (VAL), the second intake volume (VAL) being smaller than the first intake volume (VAU). However, Metsher teaches at least one discharge surface has a second intake volume (VAL) portion), the second intake volume (VAL) being smaller than the first intake volume (VAU) (figure 1).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne (WO0123261) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent No. 8146674).
Regarding Claim 15, Payne discloses at least one storage system comprising at least one device. Payne does not disclose at least one extinguishing fluid supply with at least one extinguishing fluid supply line, and a plurality of extinguishing fluid outlets, the plurality of extinguishing fluid outlets being designed to output an extinguishing fluid to the at least one device in the event of a fire. However, Lee teaches at least one extinguishing fluid supply with at least one extinguishing fluid supply line (Figure 4), and a plurality of extinguishing fluid outlets 60 (Figure 4), the plurality of extinguishing fluid outlets being designed to output an extinguishing fluid to the at least one device in the event of a fire (column 6, lines 42-60, 65-67-Column 7, lines 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Payne to include the above, as taught by Lee, in order to prevent fires.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The double walled interposed cavity and fluid conduit system is considered allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm 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, NATHAN JENNESS can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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.
/ELIZABETH J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733