DETAILED ACTION
The response dated 7/31/2026 has been entered and is treated below.
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 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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the fire extinguisher compartment" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This term appears in claim 7 but claim 10 now depends from 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(s) 1-2 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,289,995 to Fuller.
Regarding claim 1 Fuller discloses a service vehicle for extinguishing fire, the service vehicle comprising: a caterpillar track (14) configured to drive on top of a rail system of an automated storage and retrieval system, where the service vehicle is configured to move on the rail system by using the caterpillar track, wherein the caterpillar track has a length exceeding a maximum diagonal length across a grid opening formed by the rail system, and wherein the service vehicle comprises a fire extinguisher device (16/100 and related pumps/plumbing) for extinguishing fire on and within the automated storage and retrieval system, the fire extinguisher device comprising a tank (16) for storing fire extinguishant, wherein the tank is removably couplable to the service vehicle (col. 7 lines 28-32). The Fuller device could be used in such a manner and thus reads on the claim. Statements relating the device to the grid/rail system do not structurally limit the claims as the grid/rails are not required by the claims at this time.
Regarding claim 2 Fuller discloses a width associated with the caterpillar track exceeds a width of rails of the rail system. See discussion above re claim 1.
Regarding claim 7 Fuller discloses the service vehicle encloses a fire extinguisher compartment, the fire extinguisher compartment comprising a fire extinguisher framework (see e.g., figures 4-5 and cradle/straps that hold tank 16).
Regarding claim 8 Fuller discloses the fire extinguisher compartment comprises the tank for storing fire extinguishant (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 9 Fuller discloses the fire extinguisher device further comprises: a pump (72) for pressurizing the fire extinguishant within the tank; and a closable manifold (60) forming a closable fluid communication between an internal volume of the tank and an exterior of the tank.
Regarding claim 10 Fuller discloses the fire extinguisher device further comprises a fire extinguisher support arranged at or adjacent to an exterior wall of the tank (outer wall of tank that contacts vehicle cradle), wherein the service vehicle further comprises a support bracket extending into the fire extinguisher compartment, wherein the fire extinguisher support and the support bracket are configured such that the fire extinguisher support is supported on the support bracket (see connection between straps 22 and vehicle cradle for tank 16).
Regarding claim 11 Fuller discloses the fire extinguisher framework has a volume equal to or less than the volume of the fire extinguisher compartment (cradle is shorter than area occupied by tank 16), wherein the fire extinguisher device further comprises a supply hose (64) for supplying fire extinguishant, and wherein a first end of the supply hose is connectable in fluid communication with a fire extinguishant reservoir and a second end of the supply hose is configured to eject the fire extinguishant through an opening of the second end (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 12 Fuller discloses the fire extinguisher framework further comprises a positioner to regulate a position of the opening and regulate flow of the fire extinguishant from the opening (see controllable nozzle 100).
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(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,973,671 to Alsaif in view of Fuller.
Regarding claim Alsaif discloses a service vehicle for extinguishing fire, the service vehicle comprising: a caterpillar track (90) configured to drive on top of a rail system of an automated storage and retrieval system, where the service vehicle is configured to move on the rail system by using the caterpillar track, wherein the caterpillar track has a length exceeding a maximum diagonal length across a grid opening formed by the rail system wherein the service vehicle comprises a fire extinguisher device (20/10) for extinguishing fire on and within the automated storage and retrieval system, the fire extinguisher device comprising a tank (10) for storing fire extinguishant. It is noted that the rail system and grid are not required by the claim and represent an intended use of the device. The Alsaif device could be used in such a manner and thus reads on the claim. Statements relating the device to the grid/rail system do not structurally limit the claims as the grid/rails are not required by the claims at this time.
Alsaif does not disclose wherein the tank is removably couplable to the service vehicle.
Fuller teaches a fire fighting vehicle including wherein the tank is removably couplable to the service vehicle (col. 7 lines 28-32) in order to provide replacement and rapid return to service (col. 7 lines 29-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Alsaif to include the tank is removably couplable to the service vehicle, as taught by Fuller, in order to provide replacement and rapid return to service.
Regarding claim 2 Alsaif discloses a width associated with the caterpillar track exceeds a width of rails of the rail system. See discussion above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 3 Alsaif discloses the service vehicle further comprises an inspection unit configured to inspect surroundings of the service vehicle (100/40/105).
Regarding claim 4 Alsaif discloses the inspection unit comprises: a front inspection unit (100) configured to inspect the surroundings of the service vehicle in a forward direction of propulsion of the service vehicle, and a back inspection unit (40/105) configured to inspect the surroundings of the service vehicle in a backward direction of propulsion of the service vehicle.
Regarding claim 5 Alsaif discloses the inspection unit is at least one of: a first camera for capturing images of the surroundings of the service vehicle using light in a visible spectrum; or a second camera for capturing images of the surroundings of the service vehicle using light outside the visible spectrum (cameras 100/105).
Regarding claim 7 Alsaif discloses the service vehicle encloses a fire extinguisher compartment (area inside of 20), the fire extinguisher compartment comprising a fire extinguisher framework (30 and triangular structure to which tanks 10 are mounted).
Regarding claim 8 Alsaif discloses the fire extinguisher compartment comprises the tank (10) for storing fire extinguishant.
Regarding claim 10 Alsaif discloses the fire extinguisher device further comprises a fire extinguisher support arranged at or adjacent to an exterior wall of the tank (end of tanks 10 where they connect to 30), wherein the service vehicle further comprises a support bracket extending into the fire extinguisher compartment, wherein the fire extinguisher support and the support bracket are configured such that the fire extinguisher support is supported on the support bracket (connection between tanks 10 and nozzle structure 30).
Regarding claim 14 Alsaif discloses the service vehicle comprises a lifting mechanism for lifting the fire extinguisher framework (500/520).
Claim(s) 9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alsaif in view of Fuller and in further in view of US 11,701,531 to Clarke.
Regarding the claims 9 and 11-13 Alsaif and Fuller, as discussed above, teach all the limitations of the claims except the fire extinguisher device further comprises: a pump for pressurizing the fire extinguishant within the tank; and a closable manifold forming a closable fluid communication between an internal volume of the tank and an exterior of the tank, the fire extinguisher framework has a volume equal to or less than the volume of the fire extinguisher compartment, wherein the fire extinguisher device further comprises a supply hose for supplying fire extinguishant, and wherein a first end of the supply hose is connectable in fluid communication with a fire extinguishant reservoir and a second end of the supply hose is configured to eject the fire extinguishant through an opening of the second end, the fire extinguisher framework further comprises a positioner to regulate a position of the opening and regulate flow of the fire extinguishant from the opening and the fire extinguisher device further comprises a drum onto which the supply hose is configured to be coiled.
Clarke teaches a fire-fighting system including a pump (col. 4 lines 58-61) for pressurizing the fire extinguishant within the tank; and a closable manifold (70) forming a closable fluid communication between an internal volume of the tank and an exterior of the tank, the fire extinguisher framework has a volume equal to or less than the volume of the fire extinguisher compartment (see figures 5 and 6), wherein the fire extinguisher device further comprises a supply hose (74) for supplying fire extinguishant, and wherein a first end of the supply hose is connectable in fluid communication with a fire extinguishant reservoir (col. 6 lines 30-34) and a second end of the supply hose is configured to eject the fire extinguishant through an opening of the second end (70), the fire extinguisher framework further comprises a positioner to regulate a position of the opening and regulate flow of the fire extinguishant from the opening (70 and col. 5 lines 15-20) and the fire extinguisher device further comprises a drum (76) onto which the supply hose is configured to be coiled in order to provide a larger volume of extinguishing material to be supplied without having to carry it on the vehicle (col. 6 lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Alsaif and Fuller to include the fire extinguisher device further comprises: a pump for pressurizing the fire extinguishant within the tank; and a closable manifold forming a closable fluid communication between an internal volume of the tank and an exterior of the tank, the fire extinguisher framework has a volume equal to or less than the volume of the fire extinguisher compartment, wherein the fire extinguisher device further comprises a supply hose for supplying fire extinguishant, and wherein a first end of the supply hose is connectable in fluid communication with a fire extinguishant reservoir and a second end of the supply hose is configured to eject the fire extinguishant through an opening of the second end, the fire extinguisher framework further comprises a positioner to regulate a position of the opening and regulate flow of the fire extinguishant from the opening and the fire extinguisher device further comprises a drum onto which the supply hose is configured to be coiled, as taught by Clarke, in order to provide a larger volume of extinguishing material to be supplied without having to carry it on the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the relationship between the tracks and the rail system differentiates the claims from the prior art when considered in the amended form presented in claims 15-16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 7/31/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 102 over Alsaif and Kovalev have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fuller, as well as Alsaif in view of Fuller. Further, it is noted that merely making something separable or removeable does not generally provide a patentable distinction. See MPEP 2144.04 V C.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights