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 § 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.
Claims 18-27 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh US 2015/0144122 in view of Turner US 7,351,126, Black US 4,017,414, Igaue US 2019/0038458 and Meyer US 9,022,825.
Regarding claim 18, Oh teaches a life jacket 10, comprising:
a first flotation chamber and a second chamber 11, 1000 adjacent to the first chamber;
wherein the second chamber comprises therein a water-activated heating element 100 [0032];
the second chamber being configured to allow entry of water therein [0029].
Oh does not teach that the first chamber is inflatable. Turner teaches a life vest which comprises an inflatable flotation chamber 60. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the life vest of Oh with an inflatable chamber as taught by Turner in order to make the device more compact and easier to store when not in use.
Oh does not teach details of the heating element. Black teaches a water-activated heating element for undersea divers which comprises at least one metal having an electrical potential lower than a hydrogen standard reduction potential (Magnesium, Iron- column 2, lines 50-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the life vest of Oh with the reactive metals as taught by Black in order to effectively provide heat while maintaining shelf live, ease of manufacture, extended operational duration, etc. (column 3, lines 32-68).
Oh does not teach that the second chamber comprises an acid resin. Igaue teaches a heating compress which comprises an acid resin [0058]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the life vest of Oh with acid resin as taught by Igaue in order to ensure that enough water was retained in the presence of the heating element to ensure it continues to function.
Oh does not teach that the second chamber is configured to allow unidirectional entry of water therein. Meyer teaches a water-activated marine device 100 which comprises a unidirectional port 505 for the introduction of water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the life vest of Oh with unidirectional water port as taught by Meyer in order to ensure that water is only introduced when needed, and also to retain activating water when the device is removed from the body of water.
Regarding claim 19, Oh, Turner, Black, Igaue and Meyer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Oh also teaches that the second chamber is further configured to allow discharge of hydrogen therefrom. In this case, the chamber could be penetrated or opened. Alternatively, as taught the valve (of Meyer) could be pushed open, allowing discharge of hydrogen or other material.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Oh, Turner, Black, Igaue and Meyer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Neither Oh nor Igaue specifically teach details of the acid resin, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use strong sulphonic resin, phosphonic resin or carboxylic resin in order to utilize a stable, proven form of acid, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Oh, Turner, Black, Igaue and Meyer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Black also teaches that the at least one metal is magnesium (column 2, lines 50-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the life vest of Oh with the reactive metals as taught by Black in order to effectively provide heat while maintaining shelf live, ease of manufacture, extended operational duration, etc. (column 3, lines 32-68).
Regarding claims 24-27, Oh, Turner, Black, Igaue and Meyer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Black also teaches that the heating element comprises therein a water soluble salt, sodium chloride (column 3, lines 25-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the life vest of Oh with the salt as taught by Black in order to enable the heating element to function in fresh water as well as salt water.
Regarding claim 29, Oh, Turner, Black, Igaue and Meyer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Oh does not teach a third inflatable chamber adjacent to the second chamber and opposite to the first inflatable chamber. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add more than one inflatable chamber in order to provide redundancy or additional buoyancy, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the third chamber opposite the first chamber in order to provide protection for the second chamber or to obtain the desired flotation characteristics, 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 30 as best understood, Oh, Turner, Black, Igaue and Meyer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 29. Oh does not teach an inflation system. Turner teaches that the chamber 60 is equipped with at least one inflation system 70 with carbon dioxide (column 6, lines 17-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the life vest of Oh with a CO2 inflation system as taught by Turner in order to quickly and easily inflate the device when desired.
Regarding claim 31 as best understood, Oh, Turner, Black, Igaue and Meyer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 29. Oh does not teach an inflation system. Turner teaches one or more of the first chamber 60/110 and the third chamber is provided with at least one tube 106 configured to connect an inside of one or more of the first chamber and the third chamber with an external environment; and the tube is provided with a valve 115 configured to allow entry of air inside the one or more of the first chamber and the third chamber, but to prevent discharging of the air there from (column 7, lines 25-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the life vest of Oh with a manual inflation system and valve as taught by Turner in order to provide a backup or manual inflation method.
Regarding claim 32, Oh, Turner, Black, Igaue and Meyer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Oh does not explicitly teach that the second chamber is positioned during use to be in contact with a user and the first chamber is positioned during use to be in contact with an external environment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to locate the second chamber between the user and the first chamber in order to ensure maximum heat transfer to the user or to obtain the desired flotation characteristics, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh US 2015/0144122 in view of Turner US 7,351,126, Black US 4,017,414, Igaue US 2019/0038458, Meyer US 9,022,825 and Chaffee US 7,412,738.
Regarding claims 28 and 35, Oh, Turner, Black, Igaue and Meyer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Neither Oh nor Meyer teach that the second chamber is configured to allow unidirectional entry of water therein via a semipermeable membrane. Chaffee teaches a device with several fluid chambers, and passage from one chamber to another is controlled via a membrane that allows fluid to pass in only one direction (column 7, lines 53-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the life vest of Oh with a unidirectional membrane as taught by Chaffee in order to simplify the device while maintaining unidirectional flow.
Claims 19, 28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh US 2015/0144122 in view of Turner US 7,351,126, Black US 4,017,414, Igaue US 2019/0038458, Meyer US 9,022,825 and Cordani US 7,182,778.
Regarding claims 19, 28 and 35, Oh, Turner, Black, Igaue and Meyer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Neither Oh nor Meyer teach that the second chamber is configured to allow unidirectional entry of water therein via a semipermeable membrane. Cordani teaches a thermal pack which comprises a semi-permeable membrane 24 to block water while allowing the escape of generated gas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the life vest of Oh and Myer with a semipermeable membrane as taught by Cordani in order to prevent undesired gas buildup while still controlling fluid entry.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh US 2015/0144122 in view of Turner US 7,351,126, Black US 4,017,414, Igaue US 2019/0038458, Meyer US 9,022,825 and Thede US 2014/0069827.
Regarding claim 33, Oh, Turner, Black, Igaue and Meyer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Oh does not teach a container containing a water and glucose solution. Thede teaches an emergency kit which comprises a container of water and glucose solution [0013]. If would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Oh by including a container of glucose solution as taught by Thede in order to ensure a diabetic user can maintain proper blood sugar levels in an emergency situation.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh US 2015/0144122 in view of Turner US 7,351,126, Black US 4,017,414, Igaue US 2019/0038458, Meyer US 9,022,825 and Mullisen US 5,257,954.
Regarding claim 34, Oh, Turner, Black, Igaue and Meyer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Oh does not teach one or more inflatable aids connectable to the second chamber. Mullisen teaches a life vest 54 which is attached to an inflatable buoy 28, 34, 38. If would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Oh by including an inflatable buoy as taught by Mullisen in order to assist in locating a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 1/7/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Reed have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Igaue US 2019/0038458.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/26 with respect to Meyer and Chaffee have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify the vest of Oh with the one-way valve of Meyer, because Meyer is structured to allow water entry at a certain depth (as opposed to immediately upon water contact). The examiner disagrees, because there are many scenarios in which a user wearing a life vest could get splashed by, but not fully submerged in water. The user would not want the vest to be activated by an accidental water spill, and the valve of Meyer is structured for exactly this usage- to only allow water entry when the object is truly submerged. While Meyer gives example activation depths of “5, 10 or 15 feet,” Meyer also teaches that it could activate under a half-foot of water (column 4, lines 15-24)- enough to ensure the device is truly submerged. Meyer discloses that the valve can be fine tuned based on elevation, and even gives the example that the valve can actuate as soon as ambient pressure exceeds atmospheric pressure (column 4, lines 6-10).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Chaffee does not teach a semi-permeable membrane, and instead teaches a one-way valve, the examiner disagrees. While Chaffee does teach a valve could be used to prevent fluid passage, it also teaches “For example, a membrane that allows fluid to pass in only one direction may be used in this capacity” (column 7, lines 53-60). That is, a division which allows unidirectional passage of fluid in a certain area can be considered a semi-permeable membrane. However in light of applicant’s remarks, an additional rejection has been made in view of Cordani to be more in line with the applicant’s intent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Arnold US 5,540,326 and Black 9,602,903 teach devices which incorporate semipermeable membranes configured to allow air passage while preventing liquid passage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615