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 response filed on February 25, 2026 is acknowledged. One page of specification was received on February 25, 2026. The specification is acceptable to correct the obvious scrivener’s errors in the original disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-15 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 absence of a transitional phrase like "comprising" (open-ended) or "consisting of" (closed-ended) in claim 1 rendering the claims indefinite because the scope cannot be clearly determined. The absence of a transitional phrase makes it unclear whether listed/unlisted elements are included or excluded, thereby failing to particularly point out and define the invention with sufficient clarity. See MPEP 2111.03. In the interest of compact prosecution, the phase “includes” will be interpreted as "comprising," an open-ended transitional phrase.
The term “fireproof” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fireproof” 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. The standard and/or rating to meet the claim limitation in not known. A fireproof or fireproof rating, more accurately called a fire resistance rating, measures how long a material or building assembly can withstand fire without losing its integrity. These ratings are based on standardized fire tests and are typically expressed in time periods, such as 30 minutes, 1 hour, or 2 hours. A higher rating indicates the component can resist fire for a longer duration, providing more time for safe evacuation and firefighting. In the instant case, the time needed to meet the claim limitation in not known. For the purpose of examination, the claim limitation is met when the material is sheet metal as defined in claim 1.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Von Mosshaim (US4425929).
With respect to claim 1, Von Mosshaim discloses a device (Figs. 1-7) for (capable of) constraining (covering) a vehicle fire, wherein the device is configured to (capable of) surround a burning vehicle (This invention relates to the field of collapsible structures for such applications as portable garages… Field of the Invention) and includes a movable framework (Fig. 1) larger than the burning vehicle, wherein the framework is confined with a fireproof material (Col. 4, lines 1-2), and wherein one (left) end of the framework includes a tambour door (at end joist 18 near 34 in Fig. 2 and Col. 4, lines 23-47), and wherein the fireproof material is sheet metal (…platform is conveniently made of wood but may also be made of metal, fiberglass, etc… Col. 4, lines 1-2).
With respect to claim 3, Von Mosshaim discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the tambour door is spring-loaded (by 24).
With respect to claim 4, Von Mosshaim discloses wherein the tambour door includes retaining means (center portion 34 and spring 24) for (capable of) holding the tambour door open (Col. 4, lines 23-47).
With respect to claim 5, Von Mosshaim discloses wherein the retaining means includes a remote (distant from 24) release (34) which extends to an (left) end of the framework opposite the tambour door (the tambour door can be open from both sides. “Handles 64, attached to end joists 18, allow the user to conveniently open or close the structure.” Col. 2, lines 58-60; and “Handles 64 are preferably provided on both sides of both end joists 18, for a total of four handles.” Col. 4, lines 34-36).
With respect to claim 6, Von Mosshaim discloses wherein the tambour door includes automatic (spring bias) locking means (spring tension and gravitational force) for holding the tambour door shut (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 7, Von Mosshaim discloses wherein in addition to the one end of the framework, the tambour door covers 5 - 50 % (100%) of the length of the framework (Fig. 2. And the tambour door can be open from both sides. “Handles 64, attached to end joists 18, allow the user to conveniently open or close the structure.” Col. 2, lines 58-60; and “Handles 64 are preferably provided on both sides of both end joists 18, for a total of four handles.” Col. 4, lines 34-36).
With respect to claim 10, Von Mosshaim discloses wherein an end (left) of the framework opposite the tambour door is provided with a grip (64).
With respect to claim 11, Von Mosshaim discloses wherein a part (covering skin) of the fireproof material of an (top) end opposite the tambour door is transparent (claim 8)
With respect to claim 12, Von Mosshaim discloses wherein the fireproof material of the framework includes an opening (opening area of the covering skin) for (capable of) introducing an extinguishing agent into the framework.
With respect to claim 13, Von Mosshaim discloses wherein the framework includes flexible flaps (covering skin).
With respect to claim 15, Von Mosshaim discloses wherein the tambour door includes pulling means (pulling 34 downward. Fig. 1) for (capable of) pulling the tambour door shut.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Mosshaim in view of Wright (US4900055).
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Von Mosshaim discloses the device according to claim 1, further including a wheel for moving the framework by pulling and/or pushing (claim 8) and wherein the wheel has a transport position relative to the framework and an operational position in which the wheel is higher than the wheel in the transport position relative to the framework (claim 9).
However, Wright teaches a device (Figs. 1-4) comprising a movable framework (2), the device further including a wheel (4 and 5) for moving the framework by pulling and/or pushing and wherein the wheel has a transport (elevated) position (Fig. 1) relative to the framework and an operational (lowered) position (Fig. 2) in which the wheel is higher than the wheel in the transport position relative to the framework.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a wheeled framework with a hydraulic retractable and extensible wheel suspension, as taught by Wright, to Von Mosshaim’s framework, in order to improve the mobility and adjustability of the device (Abstract and Figs. 1-4).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Mosshaim.
With respect to claim 14, Von Mosshaim discloses the device according to claim 1, except for wherein the device is 2000 - 2500 mm in width, 1500 - 2500 mm in height and 5000 - 6000 mm in length.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the device 2000 - 2500 mm in width, 1500 - 2500 mm in height and 5000 - 6000 mm in length, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, Oliver teaches the device for (capable of) constraining (covering) a full-size vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the device bigger in size to accommodate a car (as intended by the Applicant’s invention), as taught by Oliver, to Von Mosshaim’s device, in order to accommodate a car (Figs. 1 and 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection for lack of proper transitional phrase like "comprising" (open-ended) or "consisting of" (closed-ended) in claim 1, the Applicant added the phase “includes,” in line 2 of claim 1. However, in the MPEP, "includes" is not considered a proper transition phase in a claim. "Including" and "containing" are occasionally used interchangeably with "comprising" and "consisting of" in claims. Since the phase “includes” can be interpreted as both "comprising" (open-ended) and/or "consisting of" (closed-ended) transitional phrase, it is important to use these phrases correctly to ensure the patentability of the invention. See MPEP 2111.03. In the interest of compact prosecution, the phase “includes” will be interpreted as "comprising," an open-ended transitional phrase. See MPEP 2111.03.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection, the Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-15 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the reference and/or the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
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 CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 May 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights