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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on December 15, 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A1 (figure 2A) and Species B1 (figure 16) in the reply filed on December 15, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a single prior art search would substantially cover all species. This is not found persuasive because Applicant assertion of a single prior art search would substantially cover all species is unsupported by evidence. Additionally, if claims 11-24 are generic and readable on the elected species, Applicant’s argument appears to be moot because all of the method claims would be searched and examined. Finally, upon allowance of a generic claim, the election requirement among Species A1-A2 and B1-B3 will be withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites the limitation “any other type of detector” in line 3. The specification fails to provide description for every and all type of detector.
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 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 “an alarm system” in line 5. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “fire protection system” recited in lines 1-2 because the “alarm system” appears to be an element of the “fire protection system.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation “an exhaust system” in line 6. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “fire protection system” recited in lines 1-2 because the “exhaust system” appears to be an element of the “fire protection system.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a vehicle vending machine” and “a vehicle fire” in lines 1 and 3, respectively. It is uncertain whether a vehicle is required by claim 11. The claim implicitly requires a vehicle but does not explicitly recite a vehicle. Claim 16 which explicitly recites “a vehicle” is evidence.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the storage tower within the vehicle vending machine" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a fire sprinkler” and “a fire condition detector” in lines 4 and 5, respectively. They appear to be double inclusions of the “fire protection system” recited in claim 11, lines 1-2 because the “fire sprinkler” and the “fire condition detector” appear to be elements of the “fire protection system.”
In claim 17, the recites “type” renders the claim indefinite. MPEP 2173.05(b).III.E.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “appropriate” in line 7. The interpretation of “appropriate” requires a subjective determination. What may constitute “appropriate” to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered “appropriate” to another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “appropriate” in line 4. The interpretation of “appropriate” requires a subjective determination. What may constitute “appropriate” to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered “appropriate” to another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “appropriate” in lines 3 and 4. The interpretation of “appropriate” requires a subjective determination. What may constitute “appropriate” to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered “appropriate” to another of ordinary skill in the art.
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
Prosecution Insights