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.
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: “fire extinguishing water supply unit” in claim 1.
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, the limitation has been interpreted to cover the correspond structure “hose connection pipe 52” as described.
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: “pulling direction-switching unit”, “auxiliary loading unit”, “towing unit”, “shaft coupling piece”, “loading winch”, and “tilting drive cylinder” in claims.
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 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation reciting that the tilting drive cylinder enables the tank to “rotate slantly or horizontally with respect to the towing unit” is indefinite because the term “slantly” is a term of degree without any objective boundary or standard for determining its scope. It is unclear what range of orientations constitutes “slantly” and how such orientation differs from the recited “horizontally” position. As a result, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claims 2-6 are also rejected because of dependency on 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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller (DE 202019104363 U1).
With regard to claim 1, Mueller discloses a mobile cart (Fig. 1) equipped with a water tank (2) for extinguishing electric vehicle fires (EF), comprising: a tank (2) with an inner space that can be opened or closed by a loading door (3.1) that rotates from the rear side (Fig. 2); multiple wheels (7.1) attached to the tank that can roll on the ground (Fig. 1); a towing unit (8) connected to the front side of the tank (2), enabling connection to a towing vehicle at the front (Fig. 1); a loading winch (6) designed to pull an electric vehicle on fire into the tank opened at the rear side by the loading door, the winch having a hook at the end of a wire that can be wound or unwound (“To pull the hybrid or electric vehicle via the ramp in the tub, has the accident container on traction means, such as a winch with a hook or a hook. Also conceivable are embodiments in which the damaged vehicle is pulled in another way, such as one or more straps or nets in the tub.”); a fire extinguishing water supply unit that supplies fire extinguishing water to the tank (“fluid inlet ports for flooding the emergency container, typically in the form of a B or C pipe connection. The liquid inlet ports are typically located in a wall of the disaster container fixed to the ground.”), which is sealed in all side directions when the loading door is closed, allowing the battery of the loaded electric vehicle to be submerged in the water (Fig. 3); a shaft coupling piece (connection between tank 3 and cylinder 12) located at the lower front side of the tank, allowing the tank to rotate with respect to the towing unit; and a tilting drive cylinder (12), one end connected to the towing unit (8) and the other end connected to the tank (2), enabling the tank to rotate slantly or horizontally with respect to the towing unit by expanding or contracting in length (Fig. 2).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller in view of Ellermann (DE 202019104504 U1).
With regard to claim 2, the mobile cart of Mueller discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Mueller further discloses that the fire extinguishing water supply unit comprises: a hose connection pipe equipped with a hose connector that can connect to a fire hose extended from a hydrant or firefighting vehicle (“fluid inlet ports for flooding the emergency container, typically in the form of a B or C pipe connection. The liquid inlet ports are typically located in a wall of the disaster container fixed to the ground.”), except a first fire extinguishing water supply part that supplies fire extinguishing water to the inner space from the upper side of the tank, the first fire extinguishing water supply part includes: a first fire extinguishing water supply pipe with one side connected to the hose connection pipe and the other side branching out to a pair of second horizontal extension parts that extend along both sides in the width direction of the tank; multiple nozzle connection pipes that are branched at regular intervals from each of the second horizontal extension parts, and bent to face downward toward the lower part of the inner space; and multiple first supply nozzles attached to the other end of each nozzle connection pipe, which eject the fire extinguishing water toward the central width direction of the lower part of the inner space.
Ellermann teaches a first fire extinguishing water supply part that supplies fire extinguishing water to the inner space from the upper side of the tank (Fig. 1 and 7), the first fire extinguishing water supply part includes: a first fire extinguishing water supply pipe (28) with one side connected to the hose connection pipe and the other side branching out to a pair of second horizontal extension parts that extend along both sides in the width direction of the tank (Fig. 7); multiple nozzle connection pipes that are branched at regular intervals from each of the second horizontal extension parts, and bent to face downward toward the lower part of the inner space; and multiple first supply (“The outlet openings 32 can be used as holes in the extinguishing lines 24th , 24 ' , 26 or be designed as nozzles mounted on the extinguishing line.”).
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 invention of Mueller, by incorporating the pipe arrangement in the tank as taught by Ellermann, doing it would provide an autonomous supply of extinguishing agent to the receiving area. The extinguishing agent is transferred from the tank into the receiving area via one or more fluid lines connected to the extinguishing agent tank.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 3, the combination of the references fails to teach elements: “a pipe receiving groove formed to recess downward from the center of the width, and elongated in the front-rear direction; the second fire extinguishing water supply part includes: a second fire extinguishing water supply pipe that extends in the longitudinal direction of the tank to be accommodated in the pipe receiving groove, protrudes forward from the front end of the base to connect to the hose connection pipe.”
Regarding claims 4-5, the combination of the references fails to teach elements: “a pulling direction-switching unit that can switch the direction of the wire extending to the rear side of the tank toward a direction crossing the longitudinal direction of the tank, the pulling direction-switching unit includes: a multi-stage support column which is mounted at the center of the rear width of the base that supports the loaded electric vehicle or on the side of the tank, and telescopically extendable in the longitudinal direction such that it can protrude rearward from the tank; and a direction-switching roller mounted on the upper portion of the lengthwise end of the multi-stage support column that protrudes rearward from the tank, capable of rotating around a vertical axis.”
Regarding claim 6, the combination of the references fails to teach elements: “having multiple roller receiving grooves formed on each side in the width direction and spaced apart in the front-rear direction; and an auxiliary loading unit comprising multiple auxiliary loading rollers rotatably accommodated in each roller receiving groove; ratchet wheels connected to the axis of each auxiliary loading roller; and multiple stoppers that limit the backward rotation of the ratchet wheels by being rotatably mounted on one side of the tank and contacting the outer circumference of the ratchet wheels with multiple teeth.”
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
Prosecution Insights