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 information disclosure statement filed October 31, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. PTO-1449 indicates that a translation is included. Reference KR-10-2431474 contains no translation.
The information disclosure statement filed November 3, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claims are directed to “[a] fire extinguishing tank…for responding to a fire of an electric vehicle charging station.” Claim 1 recites the limitation “the tank is filled with water, thus causing the battery of the electric vehicle to be submerged and thereby stabilized.” Currently virtually every electric vehicle utilizes lithium batteries. Water is incapable of suppressing, extinguishing or stabilizing a lithium battery fire.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the inflated gas injection type multi-wall tube surrounding the vehicle on four sides, does not reasonably provide enablement for the inflated air injection type multi-wall tube surrounding the vehicle on all sides, i.e., the all sides to include the top side and the bottom side. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. A reasonable reading of the specification teaches the inflated gas injection type multi-wall tube surrounding the vehicle on four sides: front, back, left and right. The specification does not teach a top side or a bottom side.
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 1-3 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a quadrilateral frame-shaped embedded groove” in line 3. It is uncertain what shape is defined by “a quadrilateral frame-shaped.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an entering vehicle” in line 4. The preamble of the claim is directed to a subcombination of a fire extinguishing tank having a fixed floor watering device for responding to a fire of an electric vehicle charging station. Yet the body of the claim is directed to the combination of a fire extinguishing tank having a fixed floor watering device for responding to a fire of an electric vehicle charging station and an entering vehicle. The scope of the body of the claim exceeds the scope of the preamble.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a gas injection type multi-wall tube” in line 7. The recitation “type” renders the claim indefinite. MPEP 2173.05(b).III.E.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an upper opening of the storage body is opened or closed by an opening/closing cover” in lines 8-9. The claim fails to recite structure that opens and closes the opening/closing cover. The structure recited by the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function recited by the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a gas injection type multi-wall tube” in line 9. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “gas injection type multi-wall tube” recited in line 7.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “as air is injected therein” in lines 9-10. The claim fails to recite structure that injects air. The structure recited by the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function recited by the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “bottom surface” recited in line 3.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “fire” in line 14. The recitation is grammatically and idiomatically incorrect. An article is missing. The recitation appears to be a double inclusion of the “fire” recited in line 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the battery" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electric vehicle" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “entering vehicle” recited in line 4.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “stabilized” in line 15. The interpretation of what constitutes stabilized requires a subjective determination. What may constitute stabilized to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered stabilized to another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “stably operated” in line 3. The interpretation of what constitutes stably operated requires a subjective determination. What may constitute staby to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered stably to another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “close” in line 4. The interpretation of what constitutes close requires a subjective determination. What may constitute close to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered close to another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the load" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “even when the load of the vehicle is applied” in lines 5-6. It is uncertain to what the load is applied.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the penetration hole" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears to be a double inclusion of at least one of the “plurality of penetration holes” recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “fire-fighting water” in line 3. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “fire-fighting water” recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the spray nozzle” in line 3. It is uncertain which of the spray nozzles is being referenced.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "water pressure" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Applicant should not misconstrue the lack of art rejection as an indication of allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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 O 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK