The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 15-17 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/19/26.
Claims 1, 11 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: in the penultimate line of each of claims 1 and 11, --the-- should be inserted before “first”; and in line 2 of claim 14, --the-- should be inserted before “second”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (WO 2024/009065, which corresponds to GB 2620424).
As noted in the prior Office action, although the publication date of Pederson does not predate applicant’s effective filing date, since the document was published in English and designated the US, it meets the eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as prior art based on its effective filing date of 7/07/22, via its claim to prior application GB 2210000.2, published as GB 2620424 noted above, which fully supports its disclosure.
Pedersen shows a containment unit 10 comprising: a front wall 18 supporting a winch 40 (note the paragraph spanning pages 7-8); a first side wall 16 having a first port 33 configured to facilitate water flowing into the containment unit or a second side wall 17 having a second port 33 configured to facilitate water flowing into the containment unit (see page 14:6-12); and a pivoting wall 19 opposite the front wall, wherein when the pivoting wall is in a closed position the front wall, the first side wall, the second side wall and the pivoting wall form a watertight container (page 6:4-9).
Pedersen does not disclose explicitly that both side walls have a water inlet port, although it does disclose that the container may comprise “at least one” port 33.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Pedersen by providing a port in both side walls, as this would merely be a duplication of parts, which has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8), and which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is obtained (In re Harza, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400), especially since Pedersen indicates that at least one port may be provided, as this would allow faster filling of the container via simultaneous water flow through both ports, and/or allow either port to be selectively utilized depending on which side of the container was closer or more convenient to an external water source.
Re claim 2, Pedersen discloses a seal between the pivoting wall and the first side wall and the second side wall (page 6:4-9).
Re claim 6, the container includes at least one port 73 to allow water to exit the containment unit, which “may be located in the floor … or proximal to the floor” (page 14:24, emphasis added). It would have been obvious to have provided this port in the pivoting wall 19 rather than the floor, as this would have been a mere rearrangement of parts, which has been found to involve only routine skill in the art and would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7) especially since the port is shown immediately adjacent to the pivoting wall.
Re claim 7, since Pedersen discloses that the at least one port extends through the wall for connection to an external water source, when modified as above, the first port would obviously extend through the first side wall and the second port would obviously extend through the second side wall.
Re claim 11, when modified as per claim 1 above with a water inlet port in both side walls, Pedersen’s containment unit would comprise: a front wall 18; a first side wall 16 having at least one port 33 configured to facilitate water flowing into the containment unit; a second side wall 17 having at least one port 33 configured to facilitate water flowing into the containment unit; a winch 40 configured to move an electric vehicle between the first and second sidewalls (page 2:9-11); and a pivoting wall 19 opposite the front wall, wherein when the pivoting wall is in a closed position the front wall, the first side wall, the second side wall and the pivoting wall form a watertight container, wherein the winch is supported by the front wall, as noted above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 13 is treated in the same manner as analogous claim 2 above.
Re claim 14, the seal is disclosed as being positioned between the pivoting wall and ends of the first side wall and the second side wall.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of DE 202020101186 (DE 186).
Pedersen does not show a first ladder on a first side of the front wall and a second ladder on a second side of the front wall.
DE 186 shows a substantially similar containment unit 1 for a fire-damaged electric vehicle 18, wherein a front wall 9 of the unit opposite a pivoting wall 15 has a ladder 6 on first and second sides thereof (Figs. 1-2). This allows access of an emergency worker to the damaged vehicle.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Pedersen by providing a first ladder on a first side of the front wall and a second ladder on a second side of the front wall, as taught by DE 186, to allow access of an emergency worker to the damaged vehicle.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Lim (US 2023/0124540).
Pedersen does not show that the front wall, the first side wall, the second side wall, and the pivoting wall have a fire resistant material applied to their inner surfaces.
Lim shows a substantially similar containment unit for a fire-damaged electric vehicle, wherein a loading unit 200 (which includes at least a front wall and first and second side walls) and a transfer unit 300 (pivoting wall) each have a fire resistant material applied to their inner surfaces (pars. [0024], [0047]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Pedersen by providing each of the front wall, the first side wall, the second side wall, and the pivoting wall with a fire resistant material applied to their inner surfaces, as taught by Lim, to protect the unit from the effects of heat and fire.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Ellermann (EP 3263402).
Pedersen does not show a box on the front wall supporting at least one power source to power the winch, or a latching mechanism configured to latch the pivoting wall closed.
Ellermann shows a substantially similar containment unit 1 for a fire-damaged electric vehicle, wherein a box 54 on a front wall 6 of the unit opposite a pivoting wall 12 supports at least one power source to power a winch 38 supported on the front wall (Figs. 4 and 6), as well as a latching mechanism 32 configured to latch the pivoting wall closed (Figs. 2 and 7).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Pedersen by providing a box on the front wall supporting at least one power source to power the winch, and a latching mechanism configured to latch the pivoting wall closed, as the former would provide a convenient manner of powering the winch and the latter would ensure a secure closing of the pivoting wall, thereby preventing unintended release of the extinguishing fluid.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Atkinson et al (US 11,224,772).
Pedersen does not show that the pivoting wall pivots about a vertical axis.
Atkinson shows a containment unit for hazardous products such as batteries prone to catching fire, wherein a door 71 (pivoting wall) pivots about a vertical axis. Also disclosed are a fluid (e.g., water) inlet port 78 on a side wall of the unit and fire-resistant materials or coatings used for the inner surfaces of the walls and door (col. 3:65 to col. 4:6, col. 9:28-35, col. 10:12-17).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Pedersen by configuring the pivoting wall to pivot about a vertical axis, as shown by Atkinson, if the nature of the articles to be brought into the containment unit made the use of a door swinging about a vertical axis more conducive than one swinging about a horizontal axis.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/26 with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Pedersen does not disclose the front wall supporting a winch (claim 1) or a winch supported by the front wall (claim 11), asserting that while Pedersen does disclose alternative mounting locations for the winch, none include the winch being supported by the front wall. Specifically, applicant alleges that one skilled in the art would understand Pedersen’s teaching of mounting the winch at an intersection between the front wall and the water tank or proximal an upper portion of the front wall such that the line of action of the winch overhangs the container to mean that the winch would simply be mounted on the proximal side of the water tank relative to the front wall rather than the distal side of the water tank, but not on the wall itself. This is not persuasive. First, it is unclear how this conclusion is reached, as nothing in Pedersen’s disclosure specifically rules out mounting the winch on the wall, or, stated another way, explicitly requires the winch to be mounted on the water tank. Applicant’s conclusion is not supported by facts. Second, it is important to note that Pedersen discloses that in the alternative mountings described, a single pulley may be used. Further, it is noted that a water valve 34 connects front wall 18 with tank 20 (page 13:18-21). As such, when looking at Fig. 1, if the winch was mounted at the intersection of the front wall and the water tank such that its line of action overhung the container and only a single pulley was needed to redirect the cable to the vehicle being pulled into the container (which clearly would be the lower pulley in the container near the water valve), the winch would be mounted in the same location as the upper pulley 41 (i.e., the upper pulley would not be needed). Insofar as this pulley is mounted such that it bridges the space between the front wall and the water tank, it is at least partially supported by the front wall (it actually appears to be fully supported on the top of the wall 18). Therefore, a winch mounted at that location would also be at least partially supported by the front wall, which is all that the claim requires, i.e., nothing requires the winch to be mounted directly or solely on the front wall, or at any particular location or side thereof.
Claim 4 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 4 are persuasive. The examiner agrees that there would be no valid or obvious rationale to modify Pedersen in view of DE 825.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
8/06/26
Prosecution Insights