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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
the louver detection submodule is configured to determine whether the louver is in an open state or a closed state by detecting a moving distance of a louver connecting rod of the louver device through a position sensor as recited in claim 5;
the current sensor provided on a power cable of a fan and a rotation speed feedback wire provided between a fan controller and the fan, a current value variation and a rotation speed variation of the fan device, to determine whether the fan device operates normally as recited in claim 6, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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:
“gas detection module,” “gas intake and discharge module” and “control module” in claim 1, where “module” is the placeholder and “gas detection,” “gas intake and discharge” and “control” are functional language;
“operation detection module” and “alarm module,” where “module” is the placeholder and “operation detection” and “alarm” are 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." In the instant case, Applicant fails to include sufficient amount of direction as to how the louver detection submodule is configured to determine whether the louver is in an open state or a closed state by detecting a moving distance of a louver connecting rod of the louver device through a position sensor? Claim 5 recites “the louver detection submodule is configured to determine whether the louver is in an open state or a closed state by detecting a moving distance of a louver connecting rod of the louver device through a position sensor.” The disclosure, as originally filed, does not disclose, in detailed drawings and specification, how the louver detection submodule is configured to determine whether the louver is in an open state or a closed state by detecting a moving distance of a louver connecting rod of the louver device through a position sensor. The Examiner, hence the public, would not know if the louver detection submodule is detecting the louver by using electronic, mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic or a combination of all these means to achieve such determination? What device or devices is/are needed to detect a moving distance of a louver connecting rod? Is the detection of the moving distance of the louver connecting rod of the louver device is performed by the position sensor? Is the position sensor an electronic, mechanical or a combination of both, which means an electromechanics device? Is the louver detection submodule is configured to determine only two states (an open state or a closed state) of the louver? What happened if the louver is semi-opened or semi-closed? Is the open state or a closed state refers to fully open/closed states? Would it be reasonable to interpret the louver connecting rod as the flat horizontal or vertical slats of a louver device? Why and why not?
Based on the unknowns listed above, undue experimentations (in quantity and quality of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure) must be perform to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The Specification and the drawings fail to provide existence of working examples. Claims 1 and 5 recite a “system” as the Applicant’s invention, the breath of the claims are too broad for one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Applicant’s invention is a fire-fighting gas intake and discharge system, the level of predictability in the art (fire-fighting system) is rather low for one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Above listed questions were not satisfactorily resolved (from information available in the specification) and consequently raise doubt as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Similar rejection applies to the limitations “the fan detection submodule is configured to monitor, through a current sensor provided on a power cable of a fan and a rotation speed feedback wire provided between a fan controller and the fan, a current value variation and a rotation speed variation of the fan device, to determine whether the fan device operates normally” as recited in claim 6.
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 11-16 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 11 recites the limitation "the fire-fighting gas intake and discharge system" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation should read -- the self-checking fire-fighting gas intake and discharge control system.--
Claims 14 and 15 recite the limitation "the self-checking fire-fighting gas intake and discharge system" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation should read --the self-checking fire-fighting gas intake and discharge control system.--
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) 1-4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (李光立. CN113782851 (See attached English translation by Google Patents). Lee hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Lee discloses a self-checking (automatic) fire-fighting gas intake and discharge control system (Figs. 1 and 2), configured for (capable of) combustible gas detection (via 200, 500, 600) in an energy storage container (battery storage device), comprising: a gas detection module (200, 500, 600), configured to (capable of) detect a combustible gas concentration in the energy storage container (Page 4, fifth paragraph; Page 5, first, second, fourth and fifth paragraphs and Page 6, first and second paragraphs); a gas intake and discharge module (300 and 400), configured to (capable of) control ventilation in the energy storage container; and a control module (100), configured to (capable of) control operations of the gas detection module and the gas intake and discharge module, and control the gas intake and discharge module to (capable of) discharge a combustible gas in a case that the combustible gas concentration exceeds a preset concentration threshold (Page 5, fourth and fifth paragraphs).
With respect to claim 2, Lee discloses the fire-fighting gas intake and discharge control system according to claim 1, further comprising an operation detection module (100, 300, 400) and an alarm module (800), wherein the operation detection module is configured to (capable of) detect an operation state (working state) of the gas intake and discharge module; and the control module is further configured to (capable of) control the alarm module to alarm (Page 5, fifth paragraph) in a case that the gas intake and discharge module operates abnormally (abnormal state).
With respect to claim 3, Lee discloses the fire-fighting gas intake and discharge control system according to claim 2, wherein the gas intake and discharge module is mounted in (within) the energy storage container, and comprises a louver device (310) and a fan device (410).
With respect to claim 4, Lee discloses the fire-fighting gas intake and discharge control system according to claim 3, wherein the operation detection module comprises a louver detection submodule (operational control of 310) and a fan detection submodule (operational control of 410), wherein the louver detection submodule is configured to (capable of) determine the operation state of the gas intake and discharge module by detecting a state (ON/OFF) of a louver of the louver device; and the fan detection submodule is configured to (capable of) determine the operation state of the gas intake and discharge module by detecting current information and rotation speed information (ON/OFF) of the fan device.
With respect to claim 6, Lee discloses the fire-fighting gas intake and discharge control system according to claim 4, wherein the fan detection submodule is configured to (capable of) monitor, through a current sensor (of the control terminal) provided on a power cable of a fan (of 410) and a rotation speed feedback wire provided between a fan controller and the fan, a current value variation and a rotation (ON/OFF) speed variation of the fan device, to determine whether the fan device operates normally.
With respect to claim 7, Lee discloses the fire-fighting gas intake and discharge control system according to claim 2, further comprising: a temperature detection module (500), configured to (capable of) detect a temperature in the energy storage container; and a humidity detection module (600. In most smoke sources, such as cooking, or burning materials, would release water vapor along with particulate matter), configured to detect humidity in the energy storage container, wherein the control module is further configured to (capable of) control the gas intake and discharge module to operate in a case that the temperature exceeds a preset temperature threshold (second preset threshold. Page 5, fifth paragraph) and/or the humidity exceeds a preset humidity range (third preset threshold).
With respect to claim 8, Lee discloses the fire-fighting gas intake and discharge control system according to claim 2, further comprising a communication module (electrical lines or data links shown in Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the control module is configured to (capable of) receive commands (electrical signals) from (200-800 in Figs. 1 and 2) an exterior (outside of 100) through the communication module, and send state information (via the electrical signals) of the energy storage container to the exterior; and wherein the commands from the exterior comprise an operation command (detections from 200, 500, 600 and 700 in Figs. 1 and 2) for (capable of) controlling the gas intake and discharge module, and operation commands for controlling the gas detection module, the operation detection module, and a temperature detection module and/or a humidity detection module; and the state information comprises the combustible gas concentration, a temperature in the energy storage container, humidity in the energy storage container and the operation state of the gas intake and discharge module (Page 5, fourth and fifth paragraphs).
With respect to claim 9, Lee discloses the fire-fighting gas intake and discharge control system according to claim 8, wherein the control module is further configured to (capable of) control the alarm module to alarm in a case that a communication abnormality occurs in the communication module (by shutting OFF the whole system).
With respect to claim 10, Lee discloses the fire-fighting gas intake and discharge control system according to claim 8, wherein the control module is configured to (capable of) control operations of the gas intake and discharge module, the gas detection module, the operation detection module, and the temperature detection module and/or the humidity detection module according to the commands from the exterior received by the communication module (Page 5, fourth and fifth paragraphs); or the control module is configured to (capable of) control the operations of the gas intake and discharge module, the gas detection module, the operation detection module, and the temperature detection module and/or the humidity detection module at a preset (predetermined) time interval (from the first preset threshold to the second preset threshold and finally to the third preset threshold).
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) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee.
With respect to claim 11, Lee discloses a control method (Figs. 1 and 2) of the self-checking fire-fighting gas intake and discharge system according to claim 2, comprising:
obtaining real-time data (electrical lines or data links shown in Figs. 1 and 2) of the combustible gas concentration collected by the gas detection module;
sending, by the control module in a case that the combustible gas concentration is higher than the preset concentration threshold (Page 5, fourth and fifth paragraphs), a control (elements in 100) command (signal) to the gas intake and discharge module to control the gas intake and discharge module to discharge the combustible gas (by using 300 and 400);
obtaining real-time data of the operation state (working and non-working states) of the gas intake and discharge module collected by the operation detection module; and
alarming by the alarm module (Page 5, fifth paragraph) in a case that the operation state is abnormal (abnormal state).
Alternatively, Lee does not specifically disclose obtaining real-time data of the control method.
However, since Lee is disclosing a time sensitive protection device that is highly combustible. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the disclosed data in real time during execution of the control method because enabling the controller to respond to changing operating conditions, maintain control accuracy, provide feedback, or update the control operation is highly critical in this kind of time sensitive protection device. Such modification would merely involve obtaining the already-disclosed operational/control data contemporaneously with execution of the control method, using known real-time monitoring/feedback techniques to improve the responsiveness of the disclosed control system. This interpretation is applies to pending claims 12 and 13.
With respect to claim 12, Lee discloses the control method according to claim 11, further comprising: obtaining real-time data of an ambient temperature (the surrounding temperature of the battery energy storage system) collected by a temperature detection module (using 500); in a case that the combustible gas concentration is higher than the preset concentration threshold (third detection signal. Page 5, fourth paragraph), sending, by the control module, the control command to the gas intake and discharge module to control the gas intake and discharge module to discharge the combustible gas (Page 6, first and second paragraphs); and in a case that the ambient temperature is higher than the preset temperature threshold (second preset threshold value. Page 5, third paragraph), sending, by the control module, another control command (signal) to a fire extinguishing module to control the fire extinguishing module to perform cooling or fire extinguishing, and alarming by the alarm module.
Lee fails to disclose in a case that the ambient temperature is lower than a preset temperature threshold.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to sending, by the control module, another control command in a case that the ambient temperature is lower than a preset temperature threshold if the condition of temperature lower than a preset temperature threshold is harmful to the system. Because enabling the controller to respond to changing operating conditions, maintain control accuracy, provide feedback, or update the control operation is highly critical in this kind of time sensitive protection device. Such modification would merely involve reversal of the essential working parts of a device (from detecting higher temperature to detecting lower temperature) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
With respect to claim 13, Lee discloses the control method according to claim 11, further comprising: obtaining real-time data of ambient humidity collected by a humidity detection module (by 600. In general conditions, smoke detectors are designed to sense smoke particles, not water vapor. However, high humidity, steam, or condensation can mimic smoke particles, causing the alarm to activate erroneously); and sending, by the control module in a case that the ambient humidity is higher than a preset humidity threshold, another control command (possibly erroneous signal) to the gas intake and discharge module to control the gas intake and discharge module to perform ventilation.
With respect to claims 14, 15 and 16, Lee discloses a control method (Figs. 1 and 2) of the self-checking fire-fighting gas intake and discharge system according to claims 3, 4 and 5, comprising:
obtaining real-time data (electrical lines or data links shown in Figs. 1 and 2) of the combustible gas concentration collected by the gas detection module;
sending, by the control module in a case that the combustible gas concentration is higher than the preset concentration threshold (Page 5, fourth and fifth paragraphs), a control (elements in 100) command (signal) to the gas intake and discharge module to control the gas intake and discharge module to discharge the combustible gas (by using 300 and 400);
obtaining real-time data of the operation state (working and non-working states) of the gas intake and discharge module collected by the operation detection module; and
alarming by the alarm module (Page 5, fifth paragraph) in a case that the operation state is abnormal (abnormal state).
Alternatively, Lee does not specifically disclose obtaining real-time data of the control method.
However, since Lee is disclosing a time sensitive protection device that is highly combustible. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the disclosed data in real time during execution of the control method because enabling the controller to respond to changing operating conditions, maintain control accuracy, provide feedback, or update the control operation is highly critical in this kind of time sensitive protection device. Such modification would merely involve obtaining the already-disclosed operational/control data contemporaneously with execution of the control method, using known real-time monitoring/feedback techniques to improve the responsiveness of the disclosed control system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a fire-fighting control system: Suzuki et al., Takanezawa et al. and Lee et al.
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 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights