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 .
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.
Such claim limitations are: “control unit” in claim 12 and “guiding means” in claim 14.
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.
In light of the specification, Applicant fails to provide any corresponding structure to define the limitation “control unit”.
In light of the specification, the claim limitation “guiding means” has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “a bell supported by a beam or a hollow casing” as described in paragraphs 0075 and 0076.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of the fluid connection” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-14 are also rejected duo to dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim limitation “control unit” 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 specification is devoid to disclose any corresponding structure to define the limitation. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steen (US 2013/0309088 A1) in view of Liu et al. (CN 203694484 U) and Guo et al. (CN 112555099.
With regard to claim 1, Steen discloses a wind turbine (2) comprising a generator (20), a base (Fig. 1), a nacelle (16), a tower (6) having a first end mounted to the base (Fig. 1) and a second end supporting the nacelle (16), a fluid supply assembly for supplying the input fluid from a fluid inlet (Par. [0029] and Fig. 2), a fire extinguishing system (60) connected to the fluid supply assembly by a fluid connection for supplying input fluid to said fire extinguishing system (Par. [0029]).
Steen does not disclose that an electrolytic unit electrically powered by the generator to produce hydrogen from an input fluid, in particular water, the fluid supply assembly for supplying the input fluid from a fluid inlet arranged below a water level to the electrolytic unit arranged above the water level, wherein the hydrogen produced can be taken out of the wind turbine by the hydrogen output.
Liu teaches an outdoor water fire extinguishing system comprising an electrolytic unit electrically (Par. [0023, 0024] and Fig. 1).
Guo teaches a wind light system comprising an electrolytic unit electrically powered by the generator to produce hydrogen from an input fluid, in particular water, the fluid supply assembly for supplying the input fluid from a fluid inlet arranged below a water level to the electrolytic unit arranged above the water level, wherein the hydrogen produced can be taken out of the hydrogen output (Par. [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wind turbine of Steen, by incorporating the electrolytic unit as taught by Liu and Guo fluidly connected to the fluid supply assembly of and powered by the generator of Steen, doing it would allow sea water as a fire source, large water capacity, can be natural fire hose cell of one seat infinite capacity (Par. [0023] in Liu).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Steen as modified by Liu and Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Guo and Liu teaches that the fire extinguishing system is a deluge fire extinguishing system comprising a horizontal spray nozzle arrangement (5) having a plurality of nozzles (outlets 6).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Steen as modified by Liu and Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Liu further teaches that the nozzles (outlets 6) are arranged at a frame (5 shown in Fig. 1) for support and for guiding the input fluid to the nozzles (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 4, the device of Steen as modified by Liu and Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Guo further teaches that said wind turbine further comprises an electrolytic unit platform (205 Fig. 8) supporting at least a part of the electrolytic unit (7) above the water level (Fig. 9).
With regard to claim 5, the device of Steen as modified by Liu and Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4 above. Steen further teaches that the electrolytic unit platform (the support platform for PDP 22 and PMT 24 shown in Fig. 1) supports a plurality of containers (PDP 22 and PMT 24) for storing equipment, such as the electrolytic unit (electrolytic unit taught by Guo and Liu).
With regard to claim 6, the device of Steen as modified by Liu and Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Steen further teaches that the fire extinguishing system (60) is arranged at or close to the electrolytic unit platform, in particular close to the containers (Steen teaches the fire extinguishing system is arranged at any location within turbine 2).
With regard to claim 7, the device of Steen as modified by Liu and Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Steen further teaches that the fire extinguishing system (60) is arranged at or close to the nacelle (Steen teaches the fire extinguishing system is arranged at any location within turbine 2).
With regard to claim 8, the device of Steen as modified by Liu and Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Guo further teaches that the electrolytic unit (7) comprises a desalination unit, wherein the input fluid supplied to the fire extinguishing system is conducted through the desalination unit prior to reaching the fire extinguishing system for avoiding salt and other impurities to block the fire extinguishing system (Par. [0063, 0078]).
With regard to claim 9, the device of Steen as modified by Liu and Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Liu further teaches that the fluid supply assembly comprises a filter for filtering the input fluid (3).
With regard to claim 10, the device of Steen as modified by Liu and Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Liu further teaches that the fluid supply assembly (Fig. 1) comprises a pump (4) for conducting pressurized input fluid to the fire extinguishing system (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 11, the device of Steen as modified by Liu and Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Steen further teaches that the fire extinguishing system (60) comprises fire detector (62) arranged to detect the characteristics of a fire and to generate an output signal indicating a fire detected by the sensor (Fig. 2 and Par. [0030]).
With regard to claim 12, the device of Steen as modified by Liu and Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 11 above. Steen further teaches that the fire extinguishing system (62) is controlled by a control unit, wherein the control unit activates the fire extinguishing system when the fire detector detects the presence of fire (Fig. 2 and Par. [0030]).
With regard to claim 15, the device of Steen as modified by Liu and Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Since the device of Steen as modified by Liu and Guo discloses all structure of the claimed invention, in its use, the device of Steen as modified by Liu and Guo will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 15.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steen in view of Liu and Guo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wesson et al. (US 3,965,988).
With regard to claim 13, the device of Steen as modified by Liu and Guo discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. They do not disclose that the fluid supply assembly comprises a flexible hose and a hose reel configured to be rotated for winding the hose thereon, wherein the fluid inlet is arranged at an end of the flexible hose, the fluid supply assembly further comprises a guiding means for guiding and supporting the hose.
Wesson teaches a fluid supply assembly comprises a flexible hose (80) and a hose reel (76/78) configured to be rotated for winding the hose thereon, wherein the fluid inlet is arranged at an end of the flexible hose, the fluid supply assembly further comprises a guiding means for guiding and supporting the hose (Fig. 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fire extinguishing system of Steen, by incorporating the flexible hose, hose reel, and the guiding means as taught by Wesson, for the purpose of delivering the extinguishing fluid to the point of use in extinguishing a fire (Col. 3 lines 14-19).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-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 HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752