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 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 9 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 2 recites “a bag” where the Examiner is unclear if this is a new bag or referring back to the bag introduced in claim 1. For examination purposes, claim 2’s “a bag” will be treated as “the bag” and refer back to the bag introduced in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “a bag” where the Examiner is unclear if this is a new bag or referring back to the bag introduced in claim 1. For examination purposes, claim 3’s “a bag” will be treated as “the bag” and refer back to the bag introduced in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “a bag” where the Examiner is unclear if this is a new bag or referring back to the bag introduced in claim 1. For examination purposes, claim 5’s “a bag” will be treated as “the bag” and refer back to the bag introduced in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “the sports bag” where the Examiner is unclear what sports bag is being referred back to by the Applicant due to improper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the term “the sports bag” will be treated as “the bag” to provide proper antecedent basis to the “a bag” introduced in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “the slot” where the Examiner is unclear as to which slot is being referred back to due to improper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the term “the slot” will be treated as “[[the]] a slot”.
Claims 13-20 each recite “The ventilation bag assembly” where the Examiner is unclear if this is referring back to due to improper antecedent basis claim 12 introducing a similar term as “a vent bag”. For examination purposes, the term “the ventilation assembly” will be treated as “the vent bag assembly”.
Claims 6-8 are rejected for being dependent from an unclear and indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6780101 (Buhler hereinafter) in view of Drysnake (Drysnake hereinafter; https://web.archive.org/web/20150424054426/http://www.drysnake.com/)
Regarding claim 1, Buhler teaches a drying bag and fan assembly (Figure 1, bag 10 and fan 23) that discloses a faceplate (Faceplate 25); and a fan mountable to the face plate to distribute air into the bag (Fan assembly 23/24).
Buhler is silent with respect to an air distributor mountable to the faceplate.
However, Drysnake teaches a bag with a drying assembly within that discloses an air distributor mountable to the faceplate (In the Figure 12 that is shown in the attached PDF of the website, the air distributor being the central body with distribution ducts extending off of it as labeled in the attached PDF).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the internal structure of Buhler with the air distribution structure of Drysnake to target the air passing through the bag around specific components within the bag to increase drying effectiveness.
Regarding claim 2, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Buhler and Drysnake would further disclose that that the face plate is mountable to a bag (Figure 1 of Buhler shows 25 mounted to the bag 10).
Regarding claim 3, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Buhler and Drysnake would further disclose that the air distributor is located at least partially within a bag (Distributor shown by Drysnake is at least partially within the bag).
Regarding claim 4, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 where the combination of Buhler and Drysnake would further disclose that the air distributor comprises a multiple of distribution ducts that extend within the bag, each of the multiple of distribution ducts comprising multiple exits (Annotated Figure of Drysnake shows the multiple distribution ducts extending from the air distributor and each having multiple exits).
Regarding claim 5, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where Buhler further discloses that the face plate is mountable to an interior of a bag (Figure 2 of Buhler, faceplate 25 is mounted to a portion within the interior of the bag) and the fan is mountable to the face plate to sandwich a portion of the sports bag therebetween (Fan assembly is mounted to 15 via 24 which sandwiches the bag 10 between them).
Regarding claim 6, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 5 where the combination of Buhler and Drysnake would further disclose a flange positioned against an exterior surface of the bag such that fasteners extend through the flange, through the exterior surface of the bag, and into the faceplate (Flange of Figure 18 as labeled by the Examiner on Page 6 of the provided PDF of Drysnake shows a plurality of fasteners mounted to a flange [flange of 24 of Buhler] for retaining the fan).
Regarding claim 7, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 5 where the combination of Buhler and Drysnake would further disclose a deodorizing system attached to the flange (Buhler shows deodorizing housing 50 in Figure 2 that is attached to the flange).
Regarding claim 8, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 5 where the combination of Buhler and Drysnake would further disclose that the deodorizing system comprises a space in the flange to receive a deodorant (Space within 52 for block 51 of Buhler Figure 2 with Column 5 Lines 42-61).
Regarding claim 10, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Buhler and Drysnake would further disclose a deodorizing system attached to the faceplate (Buhler shows deodorizing housing 50 in Figure 2 that is attached to the faceplate, indirectly).
Regarding claim 12, Buhler teaches a vent bag and fan assembly (Figure 1, bag 10 and fan 23) that discloses a bag (Bag 10, Figure 1); a faceplate mounted to the bag (Faceplate 25 in Figure 2); and a fan mountable to the face plate to distribute air into the bag (Fan assembly 23/24).
Buhler is silent with respect to an air distributor mountable to the faceplate.
However, Drysnake teaches a bag with a drying assembly within that discloses an air distributor mountable to the faceplate (In the Figure 12 that is shown in the attached PDF of the website, the air distributor being the central body with distribution ducts extending off of it as labeled in the attached PDF).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the internal structure of Buhler with the air distribution structure of Drysnake to target the air passing through the bag around specific components within the bag to increase drying effectiveness.
Regarding claim 13, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 where the combination of Buhler and Drysnake would further disclose that the face plate is mountable to an interior of the bag (Figure 2 of Buhler, faceplate 25 is mounted to a portion within the interior of the bag) and the fan is mountable to the face plate to sandwich a portion of the bag therebetween (Fan assembly is mounted to 15 via 24 which sandwiches the bag 10 between them).
Regarding claim 14, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 where the combination of Buhler and Drysnake would further disclose that the air distributor is located at least partially within a bag (Distributor shown by Drysnake is at least partially within the bag).
Regarding claim 15, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Buhler and Drysnake would further disclose that the air distributor comprises a multiple of distribution ducts that extend within the bag (Annotated Figure of Drysnake shows the multiple distribution ducts extending from the air distributor and each having multiple exits).
Regarding claim 16, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 15 where the combination of Buhler and Drysnake would further disclose that the multiple of distribution ducts comprise four ducts (Arbitrary 4 ducts shown in the annotated figure of Drysnake).
Regarding claim 17, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 16 where the combination of Buhler and Drysnake would further disclose that the four ducts are arranged in a rectilinear pattern (Annotated Figure of Drysnake)
Regarding claim 18, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 where the combination of Buhler and Drysnake would further disclose that the four ducts are parallel to each other (Annotated Figure of Drysnake).
Regarding claim 19, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 18 where the combination of Buhler and Drysnake would further disclose a deodorizing system attached to the faceplate (Buhler shows deodorizing housing 50 in Figure 2 that is attached to the faceplate, indirectly).
Claims 9, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6780101 (Buhler) in view of Drysnake (Drysnake) and further in view of US 2005/0160617 (Fouts hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 5 but are silent with respect that air is circulated from the fan through the slot, then to the air distributer.
However, Fouts teaches a bag with a drying assembly within that discloses air is circulated from the fan through the slot, then to the air distributer (Figure 1D with filter 44 per ¶ 29, this filter would be at the entrance of the air distributor of Drysnake).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of the air deodorant with the location of the air deodorant taught by Fouts since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 11, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 10 where the combination of Buhler and Drysnake would further disclose that the deodorizing system comprises a space in the fan to receive a deodorant (Space within 52 for block 51 of Buhler Figure 2 with Column 5 Lines 42-61).
Buhler is silent with respect to the space being in the faceplate.
However, Fouts teaches a bag with a drying assembly within that discloses a space after the fan for an air deodorizing structure to reside (Figure 1D with filter 44 per ¶ 29, this filter would be at the entrance of the air distributor of Drysnake). The resultant combination would be such that the deodorizing system comprises a space in the faceplate to receive a deodorant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of the air deodorant with the location of the air deodorant taught by Fouts since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 20, Buhler’s modified teachings are described above in claim 19 where the combination of Buhler and Drysnake would further disclose that the deodorizing system comprises a space in the fan to receive a deodorant (Space within 52 for block 51 of Buhler Figure 2 with Column 5 Lines 42-61).
Buhler is silent with respect to the space being in the faceplate.
However, Fouts teaches a bag with a drying assembly within that discloses a space after the fan for an air deodorizing structure to reside (Figure 1D with filter 44 per ¶ 29, this filter would be at the entrance of the air distributor of Drysnake). The resultant combination would be such that the deodorizing system comprises a space in the faceplate to receive a deodorant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of the air deodorant with the location of the air deodorant taught by Fouts since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762