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 with traverse of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 06/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the claims of Group I are directed to a product and the claims of Group III are directed to a process of use of the product. Accordingly, unity of invention is not lacking between these groups. In addition, the restriction requirement improperly characterizes claims 1 and 14 as each comprising alternative claims. This characterization is unfounded as there is no requirement precluding a claim from reciting alternative limitations nor is the recitation of alternative limitations a proper basis for a restriction requirement.”
This is not found persuasive because firstly as recited in MPEP § 1850, “Alternative forms of an invention may be claimed either in a plurality of independent claims, or in a single claim. In the latter case, the presence of the independent alternatives may not be immediately apparent. In either case, however, the same criteria should be applied in deciding whether there is unity of invention. Accordingly, lack of unity of invention may exist within a single claim. Where the claim contains distinct embodiments that are not linked by a single general inventive concept, the objection as to lack of unity of invention should be raised. PCT Rule 13.3 does not prevent an Authority from objecting to alternatives being contained within a single claim on the basis of considerations such as clarity, the conciseness of claims or the claims fee system applicable in that Authority,” and thus the restriction in claims 1 having two groups I and II and claim 14 having two groups III and IV is proper due to lack of unity of invention.
Secondly, the unity of invention was found lacking "a posteriori," where the shared technical feature is not a technical feature that defines a contribution over the prior art as outlined in the office action. The examiner further notes that claim 14 states “preferably using the extinguishing arrangement according to claim 1” and thus the extinguishing arrangement according to claim 1 is not required for groups III and IV and the shared technical features are proper. See MPEP § 1850-II.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant has elected Group I (First alternative to claim 1) and Species G (Figs. 14-19), and applicant states that claims 1-13 are readable on Species G, but the Examiner finds that claim 6 does not read on the elected species because claim 6 is drawn to a parking space (2) has a groove-like recess (6) [Species A & C], a platform (16) [Species B & D] and/or a double floor (24) [Species A].
Therefore Claims 6 and 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.145, as lacking unity of invention (MPEP § 1850, PCT Rule 13.1, and PCT Rule 13.2). Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/12/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, and 15 are original. Claims 3-14, and 16-19 have been amended. Claims 6 and 14-19 are withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-19 are currently pending and claims 1-5 and 7-13 have been considered below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows:
“Overflow arrangement or filling level control” in line 4 of claim 10. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “arrangement” coupled with functional language overflow or filling level control and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Parking aid” in line 4 of claim 10. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “aid” coupled with functional language aiding in parking the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “Overflow arrangement or filling level control” in line 4 of claim 10 (Para. 0076 of the applicant’s PGPub US 2024/0252861).
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “Parking aid” in line 4 of claim 10, because para. 00** of the applicant’s PGPub (2024/0252861) states “parking aids, for example, by means of light barriers.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a barrier”, or equivalent thereof.
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 10 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. The applicant' s specification describes functional limitations of “An overflow arrangement or filling level control” in line 4 of claim 10 but fails to describe any structure, and merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Additionally, “An overflow arrangement or filling level control” is not shown in the drawings of the applicant' s specification, and therefore does not comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 1-5 and 7-13 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 1 recites the limitation “from a standby position in a required position” in line 8 of claim 1, and then further discloses “from the standby position into the required position” in lines 15-16 of claim 1. It is unclear as to how something can be in a required position and then moved into the same required positron.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “characterized in - that the wall arrangement (3) comprises at least two modules (12) as a mobile variant, the modules (12) each having a floor profile (17) resting on the parking space (2) and at least two modules (12) extending upwards from the floor profile (17) in the manner of a wall and being preassembled, at least two modules (12) being movable or liftable laterally around the vehicle (1) from the standby position into the required position and being lowerable onto the parking space (2) and being connectable to one another or - that the wall arrangement (3) in the standby position is recessed at least partially or in sections in the parking space (2) or is arranged laterally below the parking space (2) and can be pushed, pulled, rolled out and/or folded out vertically or upwards into the required position by means of an adjusting device (10) or by filling from the parking space (2) or from the side of the parking space (2).” In lines 10-24 of claim 1. It is not clear if the term “or” in line 18 of claim 1 is only regarding limitation the limitation “being connectable to one another” or the entirety of the recited in passage in lines 19-24, if the term “or” is only for the limitation “that the wall arrangement (3) in the standby position is recessed at least partially” and the entirety of the recited in passage in lines 10-17, or something else. Similar indefinite issues arise with the 7 additional instance of the term “or” in lines 2, 4 ,14, 20 (twice), 22, and 23 in claim 1. Similar indefinite issues arise with the 3 instances of the term “and/or” in lines 5, 6, and 21 in claim 1.
Similar rejection applies to claims 2-6 and 8-13.
Claims 2-5 and 7-13 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-6 and 8-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the wall arrangement (3) comprises at least two modules (12) as a mobile variant” in lines 10-11 of claim 1. It is not clear how the term “mobile variant” further limits the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “can be pushed, pulled, rolled out and/or folded out vertically or upwards” in lines 21-22. It is unclear if the and/or designation is meant to include the each of the terms “pushed”, “pulled”, “rolled out”, “folded out,” or just “rolled out” and “folded.”
Similar rejection applies to claims
Claim 1 recites the limitation “pushed, pulled, rolled out and/or folded out vertically or upwards into the required position by means of an adjusting device (10) or by filling from the parking space (2) or from the side of the parking space (2)” in lines 22-24, and it cannot be determined if “by means of an adjusting device (10) or by filling from the parking space (2) or from the side of the parking space (2)” recites a required means for accomplishing the recited motions “pushed, pulled, rolled out and/or folded out vertically or upwards into the required position” or a further alternative to the motions.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “in particular for electric vehicles” in lines 1-2 of claim 1, and description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims, and further it is not clear if the term “electric vehicles” is meant to further limit the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least two modules” in lines 3 separate times in lines 10, 12, 14, It is unclear if there are separate instances of “the at least two modules” or if these are the same “at least two modules.”
The term “in the manner of a wall” in line 13 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in the manner of” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “In the manner of” is an idiomatic phrase which is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as “in the style of something” and there is no objective standard on determining what is and is not “in the manner of a wall.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a foil bag or a foil (3a)” in line 4 of claim 2. It is not clear how this list of alternatives is distinguishable from each other.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “additionally a wall arrangement (3)” in line 4 of claim 3, but claim 1 recites the limitation “a wall arrangement” in lines 3 of claim 1. It is unclear if there are separate “wall arrangements” or if these are the same “wall arrangement”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the respective module (12)" in lines 4 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, if the respective module is referring to the module in line 10 of claim 1, the claim does not have antecedent basis for the second alternative of the claim (lines 1-9 and 19-24 of claim 1)
Claim 8 recites the limitation "floor profile" in lines 4 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, if the floor profile is referring to the floor profile in line 11 of claim 1, the claim does not have antecedent basis for the second alternative of the claim (lines 1-9 and 19-24 of claim 1)
Claim 8 recites the limitation “can be sealed or is sealed” in lines 4-5 of claim 8 and it cannot be determined whether the claim requires the capability of sealing, being sealed, or the requirement of a seal and thus the examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claim 8 recites the limitation “has a bulkhead (11) or is designed as a gravity sealing (11) or as a sealing (11)” in line 7 of claim 8. It is not clear how this list of alternatives is distinguishable from each other.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the bulkhead" in line 4 of claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the bulkhead (11) or the wall arrangement (3) is filled with extinguishing agent (4) and/or with a gas or gas mixture as a gravity sealing (11) or as a sealing (11),” in lines 4-5 of claim 9. Firstly, the term “is filled” describes a condition of use and it the Examiner cannot determine if the claim requires the wall arrangement to be filled or if the if it is a structural capability of the wall arrangement. Secondly the Examiner cannot determine the determine how the terms gravity sealing and sealing are distinguishable from each other.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a sensor and/or a parking aid and/or an overflow arrangement or filling level control is present” in lines 4-5 of claim 10. It is not clear if a sensor and/or a parking aid and/or an overflow arrangement or filling level control are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the double-walled wall arrangement" in line 4 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the internal hollow chambers or the floor profile" in lines 4-5 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “that one and one extinguishing agent supply is provided” in line 6 of claim 12. This limitation is grammatically incorrect and its meaning cannot be determined.
Claim limitation “An overflow arrangement or filling level control” in line 4 of claim 10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The applicant' s specification describes functional limitations of “An overflow arrangement or filling level control” in line 4 of claim 10 but fails to describe any structure, and is not shown in the drawings of the applicant' s specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitations “Overflow arrangement or filling level control” in line 4 of claim 10 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because claim 10 recites “a sensor and/or a parking aid and/or an overflow arrangement or filling level control is present,” and Para. 0153 of the applicants PGPub (US 2024/0252861) states “a float/level sensor can be used to regulate the fill level of the water 4 or extinguishing agent 4,” and it is unclear if the claimed sensor for the overflow arrangement or filling level control and thus the examiner cannot determine if the sensor is sufficient structure. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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.
The above are just examples of inconsistencies and problematic issues noted by the Examiner. Applicant is advised to carefully review and amend the application to correct other deficiencies. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(Note 1: cross-out limitations in this office action indicate alternative limitations associated with non-elected groups of invention and/or species not considered by the examiner in this round of prosecution.)
(Note 2: any “and/or” alternative phrase is addressed below as “or”.)
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gundersen (WO 2018/222046).
Regarding claim 1, Gundersen discloses an extinguishing arrangement for parked vehicles (1) [Fig. 1-2, all structural features], in particular for electric vehicles [Fig. 1, 2], wherein the respective vehicle (1) is parked or can be parked on a parking space (2) [Fig. 1-2, interior space of 01; Pg. 1: Ln. 5-9], wherein a wall arrangement (3) [Fig. 1-2, {01, 03, 04, 05}] can be erected around the vehicle [Pg. 2: Ln. 34-36], which is designed to surround or enclose the vehicle (1) at least laterally in such a way to receive and/or retain an extinguishing agent (4) at least in the enclosed area and to surround and/or flood the vehicle (1) with the extinguishing agent (4) at least in certain areas [Pg. 3, Ln. 28-30], and in that the wall arrangement (3) is designed to enclose the vehicle (1) at least laterally [Fig. 1-2] starting from a standby position in a required position [Pg. 3, Ln. 3-6], characterized in
that the wall arrangement (3) comprises at least two modules (12) [Fig. 2, Each instance of 01; Pg. 3: Ln. 32-33] as a mobile variant, the modules (12) each having a floor profile (17) [Fig. 2, Each instance of 03 below the at least 2 modules] resting on the parking space (2) and at least two modules (12) extending upwards from the floor profile (17) [Fig. 2] in the manner of a wall and being preassembled [Fig. 2 shows the at least 2 modules as assembled walls.], at least two modules (12) being movable or liftable laterally around the vehicle (1) [Pg. 3: Ln. 3-5] from the standby position [Pg. 3: Ln. 3-6; Parts of it pre-installed] into the required position [Pg. 3: Ln. 2-3; Mounted position] and being lowerable onto the parking space (2) [The device inherently is lowerable onto the parking space because to mount the walls around the car after a fire has begun the portion that is not yet installed must be moved to the correct location and lowered onto the parking space to connect together and prevent leaking.; Pg. 3: Ln. 2-8 & 19-23] and being connectable to one another [Pg. 3: Ln. 23-33] or
Regarding claim 2, Gundersen discloses the extinguishing arrangement according to claim 1.
Gunderson further discloses the extinguishing arrangement characterized in that the wall arrangement (3) is in one or more parts [Fig. 2, {01, 03, and 04 are different parts}] and comprises wall sections (28) [Fig. 2, Each instance of 01]
Regarding claim 3, Gundersen discloses the extinguishing arrangement according to claim 1.
Gunderson further discloses the extinguishing arrangement characterized in that additionally a wall arrangement (3)
Regarding claim 4, Gundersen discloses the extinguishing arrangement according to claim 1.
Gunderson further discloses the extinguishing arrangement characterized in that the wall arrangement (3) has a rigid or stiff construction
Regarding claim 5, Gundersen discloses the extinguishing arrangement according to claim 1.
Gunderson further discloses the extinguishing arrangement characterized in that the wall arrangement (3) is flexible [The wall arrangement is flexible by way of using side walls of different sizes to adjust the device effectively to different sizes and kinds of vehicles; Pg. 5: Ln. 5-6]
Regarding claim 8, Gundersen discloses the extinguishing arrangement according to claim 1.
Gunderson further discloses the extinguishing arrangement characterized in that
Regarding claim 9, Gundersen discloses the extinguishing arrangement according to claim 1.
Gunderson further discloses the extinguishing arrangement characterized in that
Regarding claim 10, Gundersen discloses the extinguishing arrangement according to claim 1.
Gunderson further discloses the extinguishing arrangement characterized in that a sensor (Claim 7)
Regarding claim 11, Gundersen discloses the extinguishing arrangement according to claim 1.
Gunderson further discloses the extinguishing arrangement characterized in that
Regarding claim 12, Gundersen discloses the extinguishing arrangement according to claim 1.
Gunderson further discloses the extinguishing arrangement characterized in that the wall arrangement (3) has at least one extinguishing agent inlet (13) [Fig. 2, 05; Pg. 3: Ln. 11-13]
Regarding claim 13, Gundersen discloses the extinguishing arrangement according to claim 1.
Gunderson further discloses the extinguishing arrangement characterized in that the respective modules (12) of the wall arrangement (3)
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundersen.
Regarding claim 7, Gundersen discloses the extinguishing arrangement according to claim 1.
Gunderson further teaches in another embodiment an extinguishing arrangement (Fig. 4, all structural features) characterized in that a ramp [Fig. 4, instance of 01 shown as a ramp] (15)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a ramp taught by Gunderson into the wall arrangement disclosed by Gunderson to allow driving vehicles in and out [Pg. 4: Ln. 8-9] with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Arthur 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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 August 6, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights