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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS forms filed on January 7, 2025 and January 8, 2025 are hereby acknowledged and have been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the aforementioned IDS forms.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Reference number “31” (see specification page 4, line 34) is not found in the drawing(s).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification - Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the use of the legal term “means” (two occurrences). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 4, line 35, “30” should be replaced with --20--.
On page 12, line 21, “60” should be replaced with --70--.
On page 12, line 26, “30” should be replaced with --20--.
On page 12, line 26, “60” should be replaced with --70--.
On page 13, line 3, “60” should be replaced with --70--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, on line 13, “position” should be replaced with --orientation--.
In claim 2, on line 4, “configuration” should be replaced with --orientation--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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, on line 12, the recitation, “the electric vehicle container” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, on line 4, the recitation, “the user input” lacks antecedent basis. It is noted that claim 5 introduces “a user input”.
Regarding claim 9, on line 3, the recitation, “container vessel” is unclear. What is this “container vessel”, as compared to the “container” introduced in claim 1?
Regarding claim 12, on line 2, the introduction of, “a floor of the container” is unclear. Is this “floor of the container” one and the same as the “floor of the container” introduced on line 17 of claim 1?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, alone or in combination, did not show or teach an apparatus for restricting fire in a road vehicle, including the valve, which is switchable between a first configuration in which water is delivered from the water tank to the water pump, and a second configuration in which water is delivered from the sump to the water pump via the water return conduit, together in combination with the other recited elements and interrelated details of the “container” as set forth in claim 1. The closest prior art appears to be FR-3131219-A3 to Behm, which shows and describes most of the structural and functional details of the apparatus set forth in claim 1, as well as many of the limitations set forth in the dependent claims of the instant application, except for the specific details of the “valve” recited in claim 1.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements set forth above in paragraphs 3-7 of the instant Office action, or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Foreign Patent Documents to Wellmeyer, Castellan, Muller et al., Wang et al., Broetzmann, Lee et al., Behm and Kim et al., are cited as of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights