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 August 13, 2026 is acknowledged. One page of specification was received on August 13, 2026. The specification is acceptable to correct the obvious scrivener’s errors in the original disclosure. Twenty-seven pages of drawings were received on August 13, 2026. The drawings are NOT acceptable because they contain color photographs and color (gray shaded) drawings as previously objected. See detailed Drawings objection below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species IV in the reply filed on March 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
No claim is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 20, 2026.
Drawings
Color photographs and color (gray shaded) drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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:
“output device” in claims 24, 31 and 35, where “device” is the placeholder and “output” is the functional language;
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.
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 26 and 28 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 26 recites the limitation "the erect spraying position and the prone stowed position" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same rejection applies to claim 28.
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.
Claim(s) 24-33 and 35-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whitman (US4410045).
With respect to claim 24, Whitman discloses a mobile liquid deployment vehicle (10. Figs. 1-7), comprising a carriage (20 and/or chassis of 10) having a plurality of ground engaging wheels (wheels of 10); a longitudinal conduit (144, 146) supported on the carriage, having an input connector (at 148) at a first (upstream) end that can receive an inflow of a liquid from a liquid source (sources of pressurized water (not shown) via 150); a tower (88) containing a channel (118) therein that is in liquid communication with the conduit, a first (lower) end (at 170) of the tower branching (extending) from the conduit; an output device (120, 122) attached to a second (upper) end of the tower that is configured to (capable of) receive liquid from the tower for deployment (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 25, Whitman discloses the mobile liquid deployment vehicle of claim 24, further comprising at least one horizontal support (16, 84, 158, 162) connected to an upper portion of a frame of the carriage, the at least one horizontal support extending substantially transversely to the length of the carriage, and anchoring (securing) the conduit to the carriage (Figs. 3, 4 and 6).
With respect to claim 26, Whitman discloses the mobile liquid deployment vehicle of claim 24, further comprising means to raise the tower (188) between the erect spraying position (Fig. 2) and the prone stowed position (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 27, Whitman discloses the mobile liquid deployment vehicle of claim 24, further comprising a neck portion (at 140 and 98) in liquid communication with the conduit, the neck portion fluidly connecting the conduit and the tower.
With respect to claim 28, Whitman discloses the mobile liquid deployment vehicle of claim 27, wherein the neck portion and/or the tower comprises a swivel connection (98) that allows the tower to rotate about the neck portion between an erect spraying position and a prone stowed position.
With respect to claim 29, Whitman discloses the mobile liquid deployment vehicle of claim 27, further comprising an intermediate portion (at 130 and 138) positioned between and fluidly connecting the neck portion and the tower, the intermediate portion comprising a swivel connection (138) that allows the tower to rotate about (with the additional assistance of 98) the neck between an erect spraying position (Fig. 2)and a prone stowed position (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 30, Whitman discloses the mobile liquid deployment vehicle of claim 29, wherein the intermediate portion is U-shaped (Fig. 4. The base of 130, under 132, shows an upside-down U-Shape).
With respect to claim 31, Whitman discloses the mobile liquid deployment vehicle of claim 24, further comprising a tower support (70, 98) attached to the carriage that receives the tower when it is in a stowed position; an auxiliary connection (148, 152) in fluid communication with the conduit; at least one post (194, 228) rotatably connected to the carriage, the at least one post having a ground engaging base (200) at one end, and a mechanism (230, 232) to telescopically alter the length of the at least one post; means to raise and lower (188) the output device to alter a launch angle of the liquid.
With respect to claim 32, Whitman discloses the mobile liquid deployment vehicle of claim 24, wherein the output device is rotatably attached to the second end of the tower or wherein the output device is a sprayer (120), a water cannon, a mister, or a fogger.
With respect to claim 33, Whitman discloses the mobile liquid deployment vehicle of claim 24, wherein a second end of the conduit comprises an output connector (148).
With respect to claim 35, Whitman discloses a mobile liquid deployment vehicle (10. Figs. 1-7), comprising a carriage (20 and/or chassis of 10) having a plurality of ground engaging wheels (wheels of 10); a tower (88) containing a channel (118) therein that is hingedly (at 98) connected to the carriage, a first (lower) end (at 170, 152) of the tower having an input connector (at 148) to receive liquid (sources of pressurized water (not shown) via 150); and an output device (120, 122) attached to a second (upper) end of the tower that is configured to receive liquid from the tower for deployment (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 36, Whitman discloses the mobile liquid deployment vehicle of claim 35, further comprising a latching mechanism (170, 168) to secure the tower in an erect spraying position (Fig. 2); a bracket (166) hingedly connected to the top of the carriage, the bracket being secured to the tower (via 170); at least one post (194, 228) rotatably connected to the carriage, the at least one post having a ground engaging base (200) at one end, and a mechanism (230, 232) to telescopically alter the length of the at least one post.
With respect to claim 37, Whitman discloses the mobile liquid deployment vehicle of claim 35, wherein the first end of the tower comprises a T-fitting (defined by two elbows 152. Fig. 4), the input connector is at a first (upstream) end of the T-fitting, and an output connector (at 130) is at the opposing (downstream) end of the T-fitting.
With respect to claim 38, Whitman discloses the mobile liquid deployment vehicle of claim 36, wherein the at least one post is secured to a support element (222 and 224), the support element comprising means to extend laterally from the vehicle.
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) 34 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman in view of Cui (US20030197110).
With respect to claim 34, Whitman discloses the mobile liquid deployment vehicle of claim 31, wherein the means to raise and lower the output device comprises a shaft (186) adapted to support the output device at one (top) end and for slidable movement along a length of the tower (Fig. 6), and an actuable hydraulic system adapted to control direction of the movement of the shaft along the length of the tower to move the output device relative to the tower and to alter a launch angle of the liquid upon actuation of the actuable crank.
Whitman fails to disclose the actuable hydraulic system is an actuable crank.
However, Dui teaches a crank sliding articulated extension-retraction mechanism (links 26 and 28. Fig. 1-16) functioning like an actuable hydraulic system of Whitman.
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 an actuable crank, as taught by Dui, to replace Whitman’s actuable hydraulic system, in order to an alternative extension-retraction mechanism or an extension-retraction mechanism without requiring a costly hydraulic system (Fig. 1-16).
With respect to claim 39, Whitman discloses a mobile fire suppression or fire retardant deployment vehicle (10. Figs. 1-7), the vehicle comprising: a moveable carriage (20 and/or chassis of 10) supportable by the ground; a conduit (144, 146) supported by the carriage for (capable of) receiving an inflow of a fire suppression or fire retardant from a source (sources of pressurized water (not shown) via 150); a pivotally moveable tower (88) containing a channel (118) that is in fluid communication with the conduit; an output device (120, 122) that is in fluid communication with the channel, the output device is configured to (capable of) discharge the fire suppression or fire retardant away from the tower; and means to raise and lower (188) the output device comprising: a shaft (186) adapted to support the output device at one (top) end and for slidable movement along a length of the tower (Fig. 6), an actuable hydraulic system adapted to control direction of the movement of the shaft along the length of the tower to move the output device relative to the tower and to alter a launch angle of the fire suppression or fire retardant upon actuation of the actuable hydraulic system.
Whitman fails to disclose the actuable hydraulic system is an actuable crank.
However, Dui teaches a crank sliding articulated extension-retraction mechanism (links 26 and 28. Fig. 1-16) functioning like an actuable hydraulic system of Whitman.
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 an actuable crank, as taught by Dui, to replace Whitman’s actuable hydraulic system, in order to an alternative extension-retraction mechanism or an extension-retraction mechanism without requiring a costly hydraulic system (Fig. 1-16).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 24-39 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant amended claims 24, 35 and 39 by deleting the limitation “a counterweight adapted to facilitate conveyance of the tower.” The deletion materially broadens the claim because the claim no longer requires the counterweight that facilitates conveyance of the tower.
U.S. Patent No. 4,410,045 to Whitman discloses the mobile liquid deployment vehicle as recited in claims 24, 35 and 39. Whitman does not disclose the deleted limitation “the counterweight that facilitates conveyance of the tower,” and therefore Whitman could not have anticipated or rendered obvious the claim as previously presented, which expressly required “the counterweight that facilitates conveyance of the tower.” Following Applicant's amendment, however, the broadened claim no longer requires “the counterweight that facilitates conveyance of the tower” and now reads on the subject matter disclosed by Whitman.
Thus, the present rejection over Whitman is necessitated by Applicant's amendment. The rejection could not properly have been made against the claim in its previously pending form because the previously pending claim required a limitation absent from Whitman. Applicant's deletion of that limitation brought the claimed subject matter within the scope of Whitman's disclosure.
Accordingly, pursuant to MPEP § 706.07(a), the new ground of rejection is necessitated by Applicant's amendment, and this action is properly made FINAL.
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 September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights