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 .
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.
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) 1 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne (WO0123261) in view of Orgeldinger (U.S. Pub. No. 20130213855).
Regarding Claim 1, Payne discloses a device 4 (Figure 1) for securely storing liquid hazardous material stored in a storage container including a front side, a rear side, and two side walls each having a side area comprising: a housing configured to receive the storage container 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 (panel behind 10, figure 2) and a second lateral protective wall (panel behind 10, figure 2) which are designed to protect the two side walls of the storage container (Figure 2) 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, when combined with front protective wall of Orgeldinger). Payne does not disclose a front protective wall designed to protect a front side of the storage container; the front protective wall including two side guards, each side guard of the two side guards extends along and at least partially covers the side area of one of the two side wall of the storage container, and also extending along and at least partially covers an area of the first lateral protective wall and the second lateral protective wall and in that wherein the front protective wall comprises a transport receiving means which is designed to cooperate with a transport means for transporting the storage container. However, Orgeldinger teaches a front protective wall 16a (Figure 6) designed to protect a front side of the storage container (Figure 9); the front protective wall including two side guards 14a/14b (Figure 6), each side guard of the two side guards extends along and at least partially covers the side area of one of the two side wall of the storage container (Figure 9), and also extending along and at least partially covers an area of the first lateral protective wall and the second lateral protective wall (when combined with Payne) and in that wherein the front protective wall comprises a transport receiving means which is designed to cooperate with a transport means for transporting the storage container (Figure 6 and 9). 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 Orgeldinger, in order to protect the storage container.
Regarding Claims 17-20, Orgeldinger discloses the two side guards cover at least one third of the side area of each of the two side walls, at least one half of the side area of each of the two side walls, at least two thirds of the side area of each of the two side walls and the two side guards cover an entirety of the side area of each of the two side walls (figure 6 and figure 9).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne (WO0123261) in view of Orgeldinger (U.S. Pub. No. 20130213855) and P&D Systemtechnik GMBH (DE9212985).
Regarding Claims 2-4, Payne and Orgeldinger teach 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 and Orgeldinger to include the above, as taught by P&D Systemtechnik GMBH, in order to easily direct the fluid to the collection region.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne (WO0123261) in view of Orgeldinger (U.S. Pub. No. 20130213855) and Lee (U.S. Patent No. 8146674).
Regarding Claim 15, Payne discloses at least one storage system comprising at least one device (figure 36). Payne and Orgeldinger do 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 during a fire even. 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 during a fire event (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 and Orgeldinger 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 15, 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 and 14 are allowed.
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 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.
/E.J.V/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights