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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Responsive to the preliminary amendment, claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 21, 23, 25, 31-34, 36, 37, and 40-45 are amended and claims 3-11, 14, 16-20, 22, 24, 26-30, 35, and 38-39 are cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 21, 23, 25, 31-34, 36, 37, and 40-45 are currently under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 20 February 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In order to minimize the necessity in the future for converting dimensions given in the English system of measurements to the metric system of measurements when using printed patents as research and prior art search documents, all patent applicants should use the metric (S.I.) units followed by the equivalent English units when describing their inventions in the specifications of patent applications.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: “has a ferritic phase represents about 70 volume percent” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an outer diameter of about 8.0 inches or less is capable of holding…” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 42-45 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 42 is recites that the “portable breathing apparatus vessel comprises (i) at least one portable self-contained breathing apparatus vessel.” It is not clear from the claims what is being limited. The apparatus includes the vessel which includes the apparatus and the vessel again. The metes and bounds of claim 42 cannot be determined.
Claim 43 depends from claim 42 and is also indefinite.
Claim 44 includes a similarly confusing limitation and is also indefinite.
Claim 45 includes the steel of claim 1. Claim 1 is directed to a vessel. By invoking merely a portion of the claim, the claim is now indefinite as for failing to further limit an independent claim. The metes and bounds of claim 45 now cannot be determined. IS the claim dependent on claim 1 or not?
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 45 includes the steel of claim 1. Claim 1 is directed to a vessel. By invoking merely a portion of the claim, claim 45 fails to further limit any claim.
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, 2, 12, 13, 15, 21, 23, 25, 31-34, 36, 37, and 40-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20020153009 A1 (hereinafter “Chornyj”), in view of US 20190376156 A1 (hereinafter Sandvik).
Regarding claim 1, Chornyj teaches a self contained breathing apparatus and vessels therefore (see title, Fig 1). Chornyj teaches that the breathing apparatus includes pressure vessels worn in a vest by a user (See [0001] and Figs 1-2). Chornyj teaches that the apparatus is suited for underwater or emergency use ([0001]).
Chornyj teaches that the pressure vessels may be tested up to 15000 PSI ([0051]). Chornyj teaches that the pressure vessels may be cylindrical (see [0052]). Chornyj teaches that the vessel includes a liner and core ([0057] and Fig 16). Chornyj teaches that the apparatus includes pressure vessels which may be made from stainless steel (see [0058]).
Chornyj does not teach wherein the stainless steel has strength of 90 kips or that the steel is duplex steel. Chornyj does not teach a PRE value as claimed. Chornyj does not particularly specify the stainless steel.
Sandvik teaches a stainless steel object (see title). Sandvik teaches the stainless steel is intended for seawater applications (see [0002]-[0005]). Sandvik teaches the stainless steel is a duplex steel, having austenite and ferrite (see [0005]). Sandvik teaches that the steel has good weldability, good workability and can be extruded to tube (see [0008]).
Sandvik teaches examples of the steel at [0041]-[0047] and Table 1 and 2. Sandvik teaches that the steel has strength of 693 MPa or more (Table 2), falling in the claimed range and establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for the range. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Sandvik teaches that the steel has at least 35.8 PRE (Table 1 and Table 2), falling in the range as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filling to have practiced the breathing apparatus of Chornyj, and to have used the stainless steel of Sandvik to make the vessels, because Sandvik teaches that the steel has good weldability, good workability and can be extruded to tube (see [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Sandvik teaches several examples falling in the compositional ranges as claimed, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed compositional ranges.
Regarding claim 12, Sandvik teaches that the steel has strength of 693 MPa or more (Table 2), falling in the claimed range and establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for the range.
Regarding claim 13, Sandvik does not describe what is a critical pitting corrosion temperature of the steel. Sandvik does not endeavor to report any value for such property of the steel. In this case the steel of Sandvik has the same composition as claimed, the same PRE as claimed, the same strength value as claimed, the same dual microstructure as claimed, and is used for seawater purposes (as cited above). The apparatus having a steel with the properties as claiemd would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Sandvik teaches that the steel has at least 35.8 PRE (Table 1 and Table 2), falling in the range as claimed.
Regarding claim 21, Sandvik does not describe what is a impact resistance of the steel. Sandvik does not endeavor to report any value for such property of the steel. In this case the steel of Sandvik has the same composition as claimed, the same PRE as claimed, the same strength value as claimed, the same dual microstructure as claimed, and is used for seawater purposes (as cited above). The apparatus having a steel with the properties as claimed would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 23, Sandvik teaches several examples of steel with microstructure falling in the claimed steel microstructure (Table 2).
Regarding claim 25, Chornyj teaches that the pressure vessels may be tested up to 15000 PSI ([0051]). Chornyj teaches a typical charge pressure of 3000-7500 psi ([0051]), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 31-33, Chornyj teaches that the pressure vessels will have a size dependent on the user and on the task (see [0013], [0052] and [0082]). Chornyj teaches that the pressure vessels generally are vest worn (Figs 1-2). The selection of a suitable size for the vessels would have been optimized by the skilled artisan as a results-effective variable in order to suit the user and task as taught by Chornyj. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 33, Chornyj teaches that the pressure vessels will have a size dependent on the user and on the task (see [0013], [0052] and [0082]). Chornyj teaches that the pressure vessels generally are vest worn (Figs 1-2). The selection of a suitable size for the vessels would have been optimized by the skilled artisan as a results-effective variable in order to suit the user and task as taught by Chornyj. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 34, Sandvik teaches that the steel may be rolled to about 7-8 mm thick ([0043]).
Regarding claims 36-37, Chornyj teaches that the pressure vessels may be reduced in weight in order to improve them (see [0002]-[0007] and [0021]). The selection of a suitable weight for the vessels would have been optimized by the skilled artisan as a results-effective variable in order to suit the user and task as taught by Chornyj. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 40, Chornyj teaches that the pressure vessels are generally cylindrical ([0006], Figs 1-3 and 16). Chornyj teaches that the pressure vessels includes a regulator valve to deliver 30-60 psi ([0021]).
Regarding claim 41, Chornyj teaches that the pressure vessels includes a regulator valve to deliver 30-60 psi ([0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filling to have practiced the breathing apparatus of Chornyj, and to have used the stainless steel of Sandvik to make the regulators, because Sandvik teaches that the steel has good weldability, good workability and can be extruded to tube (see [0008]).
Regarding claim 42, Chornyj teaches that the pressure vessels may range in size as desired ([0052]).
Regarding claim 43, Chornyj teaches that the pressure vessels will have a size dependent on the user and on the task (see [0013], [0052] and [0082]). Chornyj teaches that the pressure vessels generally are vest worn (Figs 1-2). The selection of a suitable size for the vessels would have been optimized by the skilled artisan as a results-effective variable in order to suit the user and task as taught by Chornyj. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 44, Chornyj teaches that the pressure vessels may range in size as desired ([0052]).
Regarding claim 45, Chornyj teaches that the pressure vessels includes a regulator valve to deliver 30-60 psi ([0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filling to have practiced the breathing apparatus of Chornyj, and to have used the stainless steel of Sandvik to make the regulators, because Sandvik teaches that the steel has good weldability, good workability and can be extruded to tube (see [0008]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210108295 A1, US 4915752 A, and US 4246046 A are each representative of stainless steel alloys. US 20070045384 A1 teaches to make high pressure storage tanks out of stainless steel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1759