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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 05/19/2023. Per the amendment, claim 1 is as previously presented, and claims 2-6 are as currently amended. The amendment to the specification has been considered and is entered.
Specification
PCT Administrative Instruction Section 201 – Headings of the Parts of the Description
recites the following:
The headings of the parts of the description should be as follows:
for matter referred to in Rule 5.1(a)(i), "Technical Field";
for matter referred to in Rule 5.1(a)(ii), "Background Art";
for matter referred to in Rule 5.1(a)(iii), "Disclosure of Invention" or "Summary of Invention";
for matter referred to in Rule 5.1(a)(iv), "Brief Description of Drawings";
for matter referred to in Rule 5.1(a)(v), "Best Mode for Carrying out the Invention," or, where appropriate, "Mode(s) for Carrying out the Invention" or "Description of Embodiments”;
for matter referred to in Rule 5.1(a)(vi), "Industrial Applicability".
The specification is objected to as it fails to include the above headings (see PCT Rule 5.1 and PCT Administrative Instructions Section 204).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 8-9: “the mounting seat (29) of the button (20)” should read “a mounting seat (29) of a button (20)” to establish antecedent basis.
Claim 1, line 11: “the one-way over pressure relief valve” should read “the over pressure relief valve” for clarity and consistency.
Claim 1, line 13: “the piston” should read “the valve piston” for clarity and consistency.
Claim 2, line 3: “in the working position of the scrubber” should read “in a working position of a scrubber” to establish antecedent basis.
Claim 2, line 4: “on the bottom” should read “on a bottom” to establish antecedent basis.
Claim 2, line 4: “in the lowest section” should read “in a lowest section” to establish antecedent basis.
Claim 3, line 3: “the first arm” should read “a first arm” to establish antecedent basis.
Claim 3, line 4: “the elastic membrane” should read “an elastic membrane” to establish antecedent basis.
Claim 3, line 4: “the manual flush button” should read “the button” for clarity and consistency.
Claim 3, line 5: “the second arm” should read “a second arm” to establish antecedent basis.
Claim 3, line 5: “the piston” should read “the valve piston” for clarity and consistency.
Claim 4, line 3: “on the side of the connector flange” should read “on a side of the flange” for clarity and consistency, and to establish antecedent basis.
Claim 4, line 4: “the scrubber canister” should read “the absorbent bed” for clarity and consistency.
Claim 4, line 4: “the canister” should read “the absorbent bed” for clarity and consistency.
Claim 5, line 4: “the over pressure relief valve (13)” should read “the over pressure relief valve (12)” for clarity and consistency.
Claim 6, line 3: “the cavity” should read “a cavity” for clarity and consistency.
Claim 6, line 4: “the mounting socket” should read “the mounting seat” for clarity and consistency.
Claim 6, line 6: “the seat” should read “the mounting seat” for clarity and consistency.
Claim 6, line 8: “the cover” should read “the cable channel cover” for clarity and consistency.
Claim 6, line 9: “the PCB silicone gasket” should read “a PCB silicone gasket” to establish antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 9: “the electronics PCB board” should read “an electronics PCB board” to establish antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 10: “the gasket pressure plate” should read “a gasket pressure plate” to establish antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 11: “the side of the cavity” should read “a side of the cavity” to establish antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 12: “the oxygen sensors” should read “oxygen sensors” to establish antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 13: “the scrubber canister plug spring support plate” should read “a scrubber canister plug spring support plate” to establish antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a body (5), tightly seated through a flange (5a) by means of a retaining ring (3)” in claim 1 (lines 2-3); “all components are attached to the body (5) of the head (2) by means of a plug with openings (18)” in claim 1 (lines15-16); and “[the oxygen sensors (28) are] fixed by means of the scrubber canister plug spring support plate (39) to the body (5)” in claim 6 (lines 12-14).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-6 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 1 recites the limitation “at least one diluent gas connector (9) or at least one dive computer connector (10)” in lines 6-7. It is unclear as to what limitation are included in the “or” statement above (i.e., at least one diluent gas connector or at least one dive computer connector; at least one bayonet connector, at least one oxygen connector, at least one diluent gas connector, or at least one dive computer connector; inclusion of limitation prior to line 5 of claim 1, etc.). For the purpose of examination, the scope of the above “or” statement will be interpreted as – at least one bayonet connector, at least one oxygen connector, at least one diluent gas connector, or at least one dive computer connector. It is suggested by the Examiner to use indents to better separate the limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the chamber of the water trap” in line 5. It is unclear if “the chamber” is a recitation of the chamber disclosed in claim 1, or if Applicant is attempting to disclose a new limitation. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as – a chamber of a water trap – a disclosure of a new limitation based on Fig. 17 of Applicant’s drawings.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a cable channel (31) connecting the cavity (27) with the mounting socket (29) of the button (20), to the cable channel (31) comes at least one opening (10a) of the dive computer connector (10), to the body (5) from the side of the seat of the button (20) there is attached a cable channel cover (32)” in lines 3-6. The arrangement and connection of the structures and components recited in the limitation above are unclear. It is suggested by the Examiner to use indents to better separate the limitations in the claim.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Dowgul & Noble (US Patent 4,350,662) hereinafter Dowgul, the closest prior art of record, discloses a head (22; Fig. 1) of a closed-circuit diving breathing apparatus (rebreather) (Abstract) comprising a body (body 22; Figs. 1 and 2), tightly seated through a flange (16; Fig. 1) by means of a retaining ring (24; Fig. 1) in a canister (12; Fig. 1) of the absorbent bed (Col. 4, lines 22-24; Fig. 1) equipped with a filling port aperture (opening of 12 when cover 22 and screen 50 are removed, see Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 18-24) plugged with a plug with a spring (Col. 4, lines 18-24, where the opening of 12 is plugged with screen 50, where springs 94 bear against screen 50 to hold screen 50 within the opening of 12; Fig. 1), and an upper air channel (54; Fig. 1) and a lower air channel (46; Fig. 1).
Dowgul fails to disclose, teach, or render obvious the head (22; Fig. 1) of the closed-circuit diving breathing apparatus (rebreather) (Abstract) being provided with at least one bayonet connector, at least one oxygen connector, at least one diluent gas connector or at least one dive computer connector and in the body of the head there is an opening connected to the inside of the body constituting the mounting seat of the button and an opening connected to the inside of the body constituting the chamber of the over pressure relief valve, characterized in that that the one-way over pressure relief valve contains, in sequence, a valve piston , a spring, a seat of the one-way valve and a one-way valve, the spring supported on the seat of the one-way valve pushes the piston to the body of the head, the one-way valve is attached in the seat of the one-way valve and all components are attached to the body of the head by means of a plug with openings, the connection of which to the body is sealed with an O-ring, in addition to other limitations.
Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1 and thus are found to contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Weber (US 8302603 B1): Regarding a head of a closed-circuit diving breathing device connected to an O2 tank and a scrubber system.
Turker et al. (US 20080295844 A1): Regarding a connection head to a carbon dioxide absorber for a rebreathing system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAYLE DALE whose telephone number is (571)272-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:45am to 5:45pm ET.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/ABIGAYLE DALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785