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 .
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The response filed on May 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected without traverse Group II in the reply filed on December 15, 2025.
Applicant elected with traverse Species A1 (figure 2A) and Species B1 (figure 16) in the reply filed on December 15, 2025.
The requirement was still deemed proper and was therefore made FINAL in the Office action mailed on February 19, 2026.
Claims 25-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 December 15, 2025.
Inventions II and newly presented claims 25-30 are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process that does not require a fire protection system.
The rejections, under 35 U.S.C. 112, that follow are for Applicant’s benefit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 25-30 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “processor executable code” in line 1. The specification fails to disclose any processor executable code.
Claims 11-24 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the vehicles" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 11, line 5, the recitation “one or more of the vehicles” appears to be a double inclusion of the “at least one vehicle” recited in lines 1-2.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the fire sprinkler positioned within the storage tower" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the fire condition detector positioned within the storage tower" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a vehicle of the at least one vehicle” in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “one or more of the vehicles” recited in claim 11.
Claim 17 appears to be a Markush type claim. The claim recites “or” in line 2. A Markush listing is normally closed ended.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “alternative delivery bay” in lines 6-7. It is uncertain whether a “delivery bay” is implied/required by the claim in order to determine “alternative.”
Claim 23 recites the limitation “alternative delivery bay” in line 4. It is uncertain whether a “delivery bay” is implied/required by the claim in order to determine “alternative.”
Claim 26 recite the limitation “processor executable code” in lines 1-2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “processor executable code” recited in claim 25.
Claim 27 recite the limitation “processor executable code” in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “processor executable code” recited in claim 25.
Claim 28 recite the limitation “processor executable code” in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “processor executable code” recited in claim 25.
Claim 29 recite the limitation “processor executable code” in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “processor executable code” recited in claim 25.
Claim 30 recite the limitation “processor executable code” in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “processor executable code” recited in claim 25.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “alternative delivery bay” in lines 6-7. It is uncertain whether a “delivery bay” is implied/required by the claim in order to determine “alternative.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-24 have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejections.
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 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
Prosecution Insights