DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits with reference to the above identified patent application filed on 29 March 2023. Claims 9 – 18 are pending and currently being examined.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 11 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 – 8 and 19 – 28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 November 2025. Claims 9 – 18 will be examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gavriely (PG Pub US 20090248061 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 of Gavriely
In Re Claim 9, Figure 8 of Gavriely discloses a pump structure comprising: a pump body (810, 824, 800) configured to be incorporated into a stand-up paddle board ( since the pumps are configured to be incorporated into an inflatable ballast {paragraphs [0105] and [0108]}, it is expected that they are capable of being incorporated into the inflatable portion of a stand-up paddle board); an inflation flow channel (represented by the flow arrows related to flow 832; see annotated figure above) disposed within the pump body; an exhaust flow channel (represented by the flow arrows related to flow 832; see annotated figure above) disposed within the pump body; an inflation unit (824) mounted on the inflation flow channel in the pump body; and an exhaust unit (810) mounted on the exhaust flow channel in the pump body (paragraphs [0105]-[0108]; Figure 8).
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.
Claim(s) 10, 11 – 13, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriely (PG Pub US 20090248061 A1) in view of Metzger (PG Pub US 20060085918 A1).
In Re Claim 10, Gavriely discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, and it further discloses that the exhaust unit comprises an exhaust pump (810; paragraph [0108]), an exhaust port (see annotated figure above), a discharge port (see annotated figure above), and an exhaust valve (812), but it does not disclose that the exhaust valve is mounted to the discharge port.
However, Figure 7 of Metzger discloses an exhaust unit (to the right of 54) comprising an exhaust pump (112, 70) and an exhaust valve (96), a first end (52) of the exhaust flow channel is in communication with an outer surface (top surface of 34) of the pump body and thereby forms an exhaust port (52); a second end (labeled 82 in Figure 6, not labeled in Figure 7) of the exhaust flow channel is in communication with the outer surface (top surface of 34) of the pump body (see communication flow arrows 126 and 132) and thereby forms a discharge port (82); and the exhaust valve (96) is mounted to the discharge port (82)(paragraphs [0044],[0045]; Figures 6, 7).
PNG
media_image2.png
604
1754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 8 of Gavriely and Figure 6 of Metzger
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the exhaust valve as taught by Metzger in the discharge port of Gavriely (as illustrated in the annotated figures above) for the purpose of providing the capability of user desired adjustment of the pressure by manual actuation of the intake and exhaust valves (paragraphs [0009], [0038], [0044] of Metzger).
In Re Claim 11, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 10, and Metzger discloses that the exhaust valve comprises: an exhaust valve rod (93, 30) mounted at the discharge port, and an exhaust valve cover (96, 92) connected to the exhaust valve rod (93, 30), the exhaust valve cover hermetically sealing the discharge port (in the closed position shown in Figure 6)(paragraphs [0034],[0035]; Figures 6, 7).
In Re Claim 12, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 11, and Metzger discloses an elastic member (90) mounted between the exhaust valve rod (93, 90) and the pump body (36); a positioning rib (there are four ribs best seen in Figure 5) disposed on the exhaust valve rod (93, 90); and an edge (94) of the discharge port is connected to the positioning rib (paragraphs [0034],[0041]; Figures 5, 7); in order to maintain alignment of the actuating arm (92) with switch (110/112), the valve rod portion (93) cannot be allowed to rotate while it is pressed, one skilled in the art would appreciate that this is accomplished by slidably guiding the positioning rib (there are four ribs best seen in Figure 5) in a sliding groove in (94).
In Re Claim 13, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 10, and Metzger discloses that the pump structure further comprises an exhaust key switch (112) disposed in the exhaust flow channel and in contact with the exhaust valve cover (96, 92) such that pressing the exhaust valve rod (93, 30) causes the exhaust key switch (112) to activate the exhaust pump (70, 112); and the exhaust valve rod (93, 92) and the discharge port (82) are positioned such that pressing the exhaust valve rod (93, 92) opens the discharge port (82)(paragraphs [0044],[0045]; Figure 7).
In Re Claim 16, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 10, and Gavriely discloses an inflation port (see annotated figure above), an intake port (see annotated figure above), but it does not disclose an intake valve is mounted to the intake port, and a one-way inflation valve mounted on the inflation port.
However, Figure 6 of Metzger discloses that a first end (50) of the inflation flow channel (to the left of 54) is in communication with the outer surface (top surface of 34) of the pump body and thereby forms an inflation port (50); a second end (labeled 80 in Figure 6, not labeled in Figure 7) of the inflation flow channel is in communication with the outer surface (top surface of 34) of the pump body (see communication flow arrows 120 and 124) and thereby forms an intake port (80); and the pump structure further comprises: an intake valve (96, 92, 93) mounted on the intake port, and a one-way inflation valve (88) mounted on the inflation port (50).
PNG
media_image3.png
611
1489
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 8 of Gavriely and Figure 6 of Metzger
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the intake valve and one-way inflation valve as taught by Metzger in the intake port and inflation port respectively of Gavriely (as illustrated in the annotated figures above) for the purpose of providing the capability of user desired adjustment of the pressure by manual actuation of the intake and exhaust valves (paragraphs [0009], [0038], [0044] of Metzger).
In Re Claim 17, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 16, and Metzger discloses that the intake valve (96, 92, 93, 28) comprises: an intake valve rod (93, 28) mounted at the intake port (80), and an intake valve cover (96, 92) connected to the intake valve rod (93, 28), the intake valve cover (96, 92) hermetically sealing the intake port (in its position shown in Figure 7); an elastic body (90) mounted between the intake valve rod (93, 28) and the pump body (36), a positioning strip (there are four strips best seen in Figure 5) disposed on the intake valve rod (93, 28), and an edge (94) of the intake port is connected to the positioning strip; the pump structure further comprises an inflation key switch (110) disposed in the inflation flow channel, such that pressing the intake valve rod (93, 28) causes the intake valve cover (96, 92) to contact the inflation key switch (110), (paragraphs [0034],[0040],[0041]; Figures 5, 6, 7); in order to maintain alignment of the actuating arm (92) with switch (110/112), the valve rod portion (93) cannot be allowed to rotate while it is pressed, one skilled in the art would appreciate that this is accomplished by slidably guiding the positioning strip (there are four strips best seen in Figure 5) in an avoidance groove in (94).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriely (PG Pub US 20090248061 A1) in view of Metzger (PG Pub US 20060085918 A1) and further in view of Ku (PG Pub US 20050186072 A1).
In Re Claim 14, Gavriely and Metzger disclose all the limitations of Claim 10, but they do not explicitly disclose an accommodation cavity, partition plate, guide plates and an exhaust blade.
However, Ku discloses an accommodation cavity (10; essentially the internal volume of the fan) disposed in the exhaust flow channel (from below 11 to above 12) and comprising an air vent (similar to 105 in Figure 4, it is essentially the outlet of the fan) formed in a bottom thereof, a partition (11, 17, 18) mounted at a top of the accommodation cavity; a plurality of flow guide plates (121) uniformly distributed on a side wall (12) of the accommodation cavity, each flow guide plate comprising a first end connected to the side wall (12) of the accommodation cavity and a second end (free end of 121) inclined in a direction toward a center of the accommodation cavity; an outflow port (13 between adjacent ribs 18) disposed on the partition wherein an exhaust blade (i.e. each blade of impeller 20) is mounted in the accommodation cavity (paragraphs [0016]-[0019]; Figures 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the fan of Ku as the exhaust pump of Gavriely / Metzger because it is only a matter of substituting the broadly disclosed air pump of Gavriely with the specifically disclosed air pump of Ku, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable – "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." KSR Intl. Co. v. Teleflex Inc. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397; The rigid requirement of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements in order to show obviousness has been rejected. Id. At 398,419 (2007). This a rationale that can be used to support a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
In Re Claim 15, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 14, and Ku further discloses vertical flow guide plates (15) are arranged on two sides of the outflow port (13 between adjacent ribs 18) on the partition (11, 17, 18) (paragraph [0016]; Figure 1).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriely (PG Pub US 20090248061 A1) in view of Metzger (PG Pub US 20060085918 A1) and further in view of You (US Patent 11,713,767 B2).
In Re Claim 18, Gavriely and Metzger disclose all the limitations of Claim 16, but they do not disclose a waterproof cover.
However, You discloses a waterproof cover (5 and/or 9 and/or 10; Column 4, Lines 6 – 14 disclose waterproof functionality) for the intake port and discharge port (Column 3, Lines 12 – 14; Figure 3). The cover (5, 9, 10) has external threads as shown in Figure 10, these threads engage threaded grooves of the corresponding ports.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate a waterproof cover as taught by You via grooves at the intake and discharge port of Gavriely / Metzger for the purpose of blocking unwanted contaminants in the environment when the ports are not being used.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is not being relied upon, it is being made of record because it is considered to be pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
PNG
media_image4.png
632
862
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lee (US Patent 5,678,657 A) disclose a valve guide in the form of a groove (92a) that guides valve rod (96b) in sliding vertical movement (see annotated figure above) (Column 7, Lines 18 – 37; Figures 9 – 11).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746