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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending in this application.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Black and white photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention.
In the instant case, photographs are not the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention, as shown by the line drawings used in the instant application and the line drawings show in the cited references.
The drawings are also objected to because Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 share the same reference characters 22, 34, and 36. Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 are objected to for sharing the same reference characters 22, 34, and 36. Applicant is respectfully reminded that each figure should be capable of being printed on a separate page of a patent.
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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification – Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains more than 150 words and contains language that can be implied “is disclosed”. 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).
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 has multiple periods: one period is found at the last line of page 15 and another is found at the end of the claim on page 16. For examination purposes the period at the last line of page 15 was considered to be an inadvertent typographical error and was read as a semi colon “;” followed by the conjunction “and” (i.e. …second magnetic coupling member[[.]]; and…).
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeger et al (20180193677), herein referred to as Jaeger in view of Foong (20200368477), herein referred to as Foong.
Jaeger discloses a gas flow delivery system (figure 1) for delivering a gas into headgear (helmet 103) adapted to be worn by a user, the gas delivery system comprising: a gas source (120); headgear (helmet 103) having a user interface configured to receive at least the nose and/or mouth of a user within an internal region thereof (both nose and mouth of user would be in the interior of the helmet 103); a fluid circuit (114, 116, 118) in communication with the gas source (120) at one end and the internal region of the user interface of the headgear at another end (interior of helmet 103 via connection to 106); a magnetic coupling assembly (Shown in Fig. 4C) interposed in the fluid circuit (located between the helmet 103 and the gas supply 120), the magnetic coupling assembly (Shown in Fig. 4C) including a first magnetic coupling member (130) and a second magnetic coupling member (158), the first and second magnetic coupling members having opposing mating surfaces and defining an axis along which the first and second magnetic coupling members magnetically engage one another (see paragraphs [0123]), wherein: each of the first (130) and second (158) magnetic coupling members comprise a main body portion (body portions of 130 and 158) and one of the coupling members has a retaining cap (174) connected to one of the main body portions (158) , the retaining cap (174) on the coupling member (158) and main body portion (body portions of 130 and 158) of each coupling member (130 and 158) defining an annular chamber (144 and 172) in which a ring-shaped magnet (142 and 170) is disposed; the retaining cap (174) of the magnetic coupling member defines one of the opposing mating surfaces on the second coupling members (158), at least a portion of the opposing mating surfaces being transverse to the axis (note 174 is formed with a c-shale to accommodate an O-ring); the headgear (helmet 103) comprises an interface input tube (104) and the first magnetic coupling member (130 via 106) is connected to the interface input tube (104); the second magnetic coupling member (158) is connected to a gas delivery tube (118 via 105) that defines at least part of the fluid circuit (from gas source 116 to helmet 103); the second magnetic coupling member (158) may be separated from the first magnetic coupling member (130) through the application of an axial pull force of at least 48 ounce-force or greater (See paragraphs [0030] and [0146]); and wherein the second magnetic coupling member may also be separated (may or may not as this is not a positive limitation) from the first magnetic coupling member through a torque created by the application of a force orthogonal to the axis to the second magnetic coupling member (application of force in an orthogonal direction may also cause the separation of the second coupling member from the first coupling member)[[.]]; and a detachment force required to disconnect the second magnetic coupling member from the first magnetic coupling member is such that the coupling members will disconnect without injuring a user wearing the headgear if a portion of the gas delivery tube connected to the second magnetic coupling member is subjected to a force exceeding such detachment force (separating the coupling members from one another would not injure a user wearing the helmet).
PNG
media_image1.png
245
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moreover, Jaeger discloses providing forced air to additional user interfaces. See: figures 50 and 51 and paragraphs [0106], [0185], and [0225]-[0226]. However, Jaeger lacks the specific disclosure that each of the first and second magnetic coupling members comprising a main body portion and a retaining cap connected to the main body portion.
Foong discloses an air deliver system (figures 1A-1C) and a magnetic coupling assembly (figure 14) for use with an air delivery system wherein the magnetic coupling assembly including a first magnetic coupling member (6230) and a second magnetic coupling member (6310), the first and second magnetic coupling members having opposing mating surfaces (north and south as described in paragraphs [0205]-[0206]) and defining an axis along which the first and second magnetic coupling members magnetically engage one another (see axis line shown in figure 14), wherein: each of the first and second magnetic coupling members comprise a main body portion (6240 and 6340) and a retaining cap (6214 and 6336) connected to the main body portion, the retaining cap and main body portion of each coupling member defining an annular chamber (see chamber formed in 6230 and 6310) in which a ring-shaped magnet (6218 and 6318) is disposed; the retaining caps of each of the first and second magnetic coupling members define the opposing mating surfaces of the first and second coupling members.
PNG
media_image2.png
210
591
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
569
937
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the magnetic coupling assembly with first and second coupling members as taught by Jaegar to have covers on both coupling members, as taught by Foong, in order to provide a magnetic connection that would be more sanitary and could be easily cleaned without removing the magnet, as the open magnet in the cavity on 130 as provided by Jaegar would allow debris to collect around the magnet in the cavity between 144, 142, and 146.
Regarding claim 2, the gas flow delivery system of Jaegar/Foong has the gas source comprises an air fan. “Referring to FIG. 1, a primary fluid delivery tube 114 has a first tube portion 116 and a second tube portion 118. The first tube portion 116 is connected at one end to a first fluid source 120. The first fluid source is preferably an air source, and may include a fan to move air to the user. The air may be drawn from the ambient air or may be drawn from an air reservoir. The first fluid source 120 may be used to provide air to a user 126.” See: paragraph [0102] of Jaegar.
Regarding claim 3, the gas flow delivery system of Jaegar/Foong has the first magnetic coupling member (130 of Jaegar) is removably connectable to the interface input tube (104 of Jaegar).
Regarding claim 4, the gas flow delivery system of Jaegar/Foong has the first magnetic coupling member (130 of Jaegar) is removably connectable to the interface input tube via an interference connection (See: paragraph [0108] of Jaegar).
Regarding claim 5, the gas flow delivery system of Jaegar/Foong has the first magnetic coupling member (130 of Jaegar) integrally formed with the interface input tube (104 of Jaegar). As shown in figures 1, 3A, and 3B of Jaegar, the connection 106 of Jaegar is integrally formed with 104 of Jaegar.
Regarding claim 6, the gas flow delivery system of Jaegar/Foong has the second magnetic coupling member (158 of Jaegar) includes a connector (threads of 158 of Jaegar) configured to connect to a distal end of the gas delivery tube (118 of Jaegar) to the second coupling member (158 of Jaegar).
Regarding claim 7, the gas flow delivery system of Jaegar/Foong has the connector included in the second magnetic coupling member (158 of Jaegar comprises threads designed to engage with the external surface of a coil included in the gas delivery tube. See: figure 4C.
PNG
media_image4.png
240
483
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the gas flow delivery system of Jaegar is silent regarding the types of materials the coupling members are made of but Foong discloses the retaining caps and main body portions of each coupling member are made of plastic. See: paragraphs [0223], [0227], [0229], and [0233].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have formed the retaining caps and main body portions of each coupling member of the gas flow delivery system of the combined references of plastic, as taught by Foong, in order to provide a magnetic coupling using cheap, light, well-known, materials that would be expected to be safe for delivering gasses to a user and the plastic materials would provide less interference with the magnetic properties of the connection than other materials, such as metal.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeger et al (20180193677), herein referred to as Jaeger, in view of Foong (20200368477), herein referred to as Foong, and further in view of Graham et al (20130115501), herein referred to as Graham.
Regarding claims 9-10, the gas flow delivery system of Jaeger/Foong discloses the retaining cap and main body portion of each coupling member are connected together; however, the combined references lack the teaching of using sonic welding to connect them together.
Graham discloses a gas delivery system and describes how connector fittings for the gas delivery system are preferably permanently fixed and/or air tight by friction fit, adhesive bonding, over moulding, or by thermal or ultrasonic welding etc. See: paragraph [0098].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was flied to have connected the connections of Jaeger/Foong using ultrasonic welding, as taught by Graham, in order to provide separate connecting members with permanently enclosed magnetic components sandwiched between the respective base and the cover which would be desired in order to keep the magnets maintained in their desired positions and isolated from the fluid flow path of air.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeger et al (20180193677), herein referred to as Jaeger in view of Foong (20200368477), herein referred to as Foong, and further in view of Coleman et al (10052754), herein referred to as Coleman.
The gas flow delivery system of Jaeger/Foong disclose the magnetic coupling assembly, but they lack a docking station made from a ferromagnetic material, the docking station configured to magnetically hold the mating surface of at least one of the first and second coupling members against the docking station.
Coleman discloses a magnetic tool holder (figure 7 which is equivalent to a docking station) for holding sockets (which are of a tubular structure) wherein the tool holder is made from a ferromagnetic material, the docking station configured to magnetically hold the mating surface of at least one of the first and second coupling members (tubular member) against the docking station (tool holder).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a holder as taught by Coleman and placed at least one of the first and second coupling members of Jaeger/Foong on the holder (docking station) of Coleman in order to provide a clean surface for maintaining the coupling while donning the helmet and ensuring the fluids are properly connected to the fluid circuit prior to connection the first and second coupling members.
Regarding claim 12, the gas flow delivery system Jaeger/Foong/Coleman have a docking station (top portion of 50 in figure 7) first (where 90 connects) and second docking area (any one of the sides of 50 in figure 7) that are orthogonal to one another, each of the first and second docking areas being configured to magnetically hold the mating surface of at least one of the first and second coupling members against the docking station (see the poles shown for each side of figure 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See: attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINTON T OSTRUP whose telephone number is (571)272-5559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-2180. 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.
/CLINTON T OSTRUP/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732