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: “a pull-out device” in claims 1 and 13; “pull-out means” in claims 3 and 14; “deflection means” in claim 4; and “a separating device” in claim 5.
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. Such corresponding structure(s) is/are: for the “pull-out device” and “pull-out means” – “cables”, as described in par. 32; for the “deflection means” – “rollers”, as described in par. 32; and for the “separating device” – a “cutting device”, as described in par. 36.
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 3-5 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 3 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear if the “pull-out means” recited in line 4 is referring to the “pull-out device” recited in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, or to a new element. For the purposes of examination, the former interpretation will be assumed since this appears to be consistent with the invention disclosed in the Specification and Drawings.
Claims 4-5 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear if the “two pull-out means” recited in line 7 is further limiting the “pull-out means” recited in claim 3, from which claim 4 depends, or to two additional “pull-out means”. For the purposes of examination, the former interpretation will be assumed since this appears to be consistent with the invention disclosed in the Specification and Drawings.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the side" in line 8 and “the pull-out direction” in lines 8-9 and “edge portions” in line 11. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear to which of the “pull-out means” the limitation of line 3 refers.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jutec (DE 202022101021).
Regarding claim 1, Jutec teaches a fire protection device (p. 1, par. 2; fig. 1) comprising a fire protection blanket (1) which can be placed over a potentially burning object positioned on a parking space, such as in particular a battery-operated vehicle, in order to counteract the spread of fire emanating from or spreading to the object (p. 1, par. 3), characterized in that
the fire protection blanket is compactly combined into a bale, in particular rolled up and/or folded together, is accommodated in a box-like housing (2, see figs. 1, 2) which can be mounted or is mounted on the parking space (fig. 1, 2 – the box 2 is capable of being mounted on a parking space) and is connected to a pull-out device (4/5), by means of which it can be placed manually or automatically completely over the object in the event of fire or fire hazard (p. 5, par. 1) in such a manner that it rests with side portions completely or at least largely all around on the parking space floor (fig. 5) in order to prevent an influx of oxygen as far as possible.
Regarding claim 3, Jutec teaches the fire protection device described regarding claim 1, and further characterized in that the fire protection blanket is rolled up or folded in the housing and is connected to pull-out means (fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 12, Jutec teaches the fire protection device described regarding claim 1, and further characterized in that a height and/or width adjustment device (18, which is a “telescopic handle” that can be extended or retracted, adjusting the height and/or width of the box) is provided, via which the housing can be mounted or fitted to the parking space in a height and/or width-adjustable manner.
Regarding claim 13, Jutec teaches a method of preventing or suppressing a fire starting from or spreading to an object, in particular a vehicle, positioned on a parking space (p. 1, par. 2-3), in which a fire protection blanket (1) accommodated in a housing (2) as a rolled-up or folded-up bale (figs. 1, 2) is released (fig. 3) and prepared over the object with edge portions placed on the ground (fig. 5), characterized in that the fire protection blanket is manually or automatically pulled out of the housing over the object by means of a pull-out device (4/5) and then lowered.
Claims 1-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (JP H10-127810, all references herein are to the English translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches a fire protection device (1) comprising a fire protection blanket (10) which can be placed over a potentially burning object positioned on a parking space, such as in particular a battery-operated vehicle, in order to counteract the spread of fire emanating from or spreading to the object (par. 1), characterized in that
the fire protection blanket is compactly combined into a bale, in particular rolled up and/or folded together, is accommodated in a box-like housing (1A, see par. 5, fig. 1) which can be mounted or is mounted on the parking space (fig. 3) and is connected to a pull-out device (elements 11 and “A”, “B”), by means of which it can be placed manually or automatically completely over the object in the event of fire or fire hazard (p. 5, par. 1) in such a manner that it rests with side portions completely or at least largely all around on the parking space floor (par. 11-13) in order to prevent an influx of oxygen as far as possible (par. 11).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura teaches the fire protection device described regarding claim 1, and further characterized in that the housing is provided with a wall portion (18, see figs. 1, 3) covering an extraction opening (fig. 1 – opening at lower left corner), which can be moved away automatically in the event of a fire hazard in response to an opening signal triggered manually or by means of a sensor arrangement (par. 11 – “control panel”) to release the extraction opening (par. 11).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura teaches the fire protection device described regarding claim 1, and further characterized in that the fire protection blanket is rolled up or folded in the housing and is connected to pull-out means (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura teaches the fire protection device described regarding claim 3, and further characterized in that the housing is mounted in front of the object above it on a parking space boundary, in particular a wall, in the direction of extension (see fig. 3), deflection means (3, see par. 9) are attached behind and above the object (figs. 3, 4) on a support part (2, see par. 9) and two pull-out means (figs. 3, 4), in particular in the form of pull ropes (par. 10 – “wires”), are attached to the fire protection blanket (3) at the side and above the object, running in the pull-out direction (fig. 4), and are guided around the deflection means (par. 9, 11 – the device is moved, or guided, to the parking space via wheel roller 3), with which the fire protection blanket can be pulled out in the pull-out direction over the entire length of the object and can then be deposited with edge portions on the floor of the parking space (par. 11-13; figs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura teaches the fire protection device described regarding claim 4, and further characterized in that a separating device (12A) for separating a connection of the pull-out means from the fire protection blanket or the pull-out means themselves (par. 11 – elements 12A separate “the pull-out means themselves” from the housing) is provided for depositing the fire protection blanket on the floor behind the object (par. 11-13).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura teaches the fire protection device described regarding claim 1, and further characterized in that the pull-out device, which is connected in particular to a control apparatus (par. 9 – “control device”; par. 11 – “control panel”), for automatically pulling out the fire protection blanket is coupled to a drive device (12/13/14/15), which can be activated manually or in response to a signal from a fire detector (par. 11 – “instruction from the control panel”).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura teaches the fire protection device described regarding claim 6, and further characterized in that an electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic or mechanical energy source, in particular having a spring arrangement, is present for providing the drive energy of the drive device (par. 11 – the valve 14 is electrically operated and allow the gas be released and provide the drive energy of the drive device; therefore, it is “electrical” and “pneumatic”).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura teaches the fire protection device described regarding claim 7, and further characterized in that the energy source is arranged on or in the housing (figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura teaches the fire protection device described regarding claim 6, and further characterized in that the drive device is connected to the pull-out means (elements “A” are contained within 12, see par. 11).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura teaches the fire protection device described regarding claim 6, and further characterized in that the drive device is designed for rotating drive and is provided with a winding device or traction-exerting passage means for the pull-out means (par. 15).
Regarding claim 13, Nakamura teaches a method of preventing or suppressing a fire starting from or spreading to an object, in particular a vehicle, positioned on a parking space (par. 1), in which a fire protection blanket (10) accommodated in a housing (1A) as a rolled-up or folded-up bale (see par. 5, fig. 1) is released and prepared over the object with edge portions placed on the ground (par. 11-13), characterized in that the fire protection blanket is manually or automatically pulled out of the housing over the object by means of a pull-out device (11, “A”, and “B”) and then lowered.
Regarding claim 14, Nakamura teaches the method of preventing or suppressing a fire starting from or spreading to an object described regarding claim 13, and further characterized in that the pull-out device has pull-out means coupled to the fire protection blanket for pulling out (fig. 3, 4), in particular pull cables (par. 10 – “wires”), which are guided via deflection elements (3, see par. 9, 11 – the device is moved, or guided, to the parking space via wheel roller 3) and are severed in the event of fire in order to lower the pulled-out fire protection blanket (par. 11 – elements 12A separate, or cut off, the cables 11 from the housing).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jutec in view of Bush et al. (US 2010/0269449).
Regarding claim 11, Jutec discloses the fire protection device described regarding claim 1, and further characterized in that the fire protection blanket is made of high-performance material - which is designed for temperatures of up to 1,100°C continuous load (>24 h) and/or up to 1,600°C maximum load (up to approx. 15 min) (see p. 2, par. 5). Jutec does not disclose the fire protection blanket is made of high-performance material - which is designed for temperatures of up to 1,500°C continuous load (>24 h) and/or up to 2,500°C maximum load (up to approx. 15 min).
Bush teaches a fire protection device (fig. 1A, 2A, 2B) comprising a fire protection blanket (24) made of high-performance material - which is designed for temperatures of up to 1,500°C continuous load (>24 h) (par. 92).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire protection blanket of Jutec, to design it for temperatures of up to 1,500°C continuous, as taught by Bush, since this was known to be a temperature that fires can reach, and such a blanket would be capable of protecting from such a fire.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kang (US 2021/0283437) and Hutton (US 2021/0038932) both teach fire protection devices having elements of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights