Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This office action is in response to the filing of the application on 3/30/2023. Since the initial filing, no claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Thus, claims 1-17 are pending in the application.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: In Fig. 1 part 105 is missing in the specification, In Fig. 4-5 refence character R does not show up specification.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1, specifies part 34 Legs, but fails to show proper specification material. 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.
Specification
4. 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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because use of the words “comprise” and “comprising” which are considered legal phraseology which should not be in the abstract. Additionally, abstract line 3 has a typo “E each” at the start of a sentence. 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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Part 105 listed in Figure 1 is missing. Refence character R listed in Figures 4&5 is additionally missing in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
At present, no claims are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, and 11 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(s) 3, 5, and 11 are rejected due to use of indefinite wording. For example, in claim 3 line 2, the wording “at least a subset of the at least one fixing clip” can be interpreted as taking a subset of a singular, which is not possible. Examiner suggests the limitation "for at least a subset of the at least one fixing clip, the fixing clip comprises" to be replaced by --wherein at least one fixing clip comprises--.
Similarly, in claim 5 line 2 the wording “at least a subset of the at least one fixing clip, the fixing clip comprises” is indefinite for the same reasons as stated above.
Additionally, claim 11 line 2 the wording “at least a subset of the at least one oxygen hose, the respective oxygen hose comprises” is indefinite for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-7, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Contino et al.(US 20130074836 A1) in view of Courter (US 4154237 A).
Regarding claim 1, Contino discloses an emergency oxygen supply system (abs. line 1, apparatus for deploying oxygen), including at least one passenger oxygen mask (16) (Found in Contino et al. para. 3 line 4, oxygen mask, Fig. 1A, oxygen mask 16); a compartment for housing the at least one passenger oxygen mask (12) (para. 1 line 3, a storage container, Fig. 1A, a storage container 12); at least one oxygen hose (29) (para. 1 line 16-17, oxygen tubes, Fig. 1A, oxygen tubes (29)), wherein each of the at least one passenger oxygen mask is coupled to a respective oxygen hose for supplying a gas comprising oxygen to the respective oxygen mask (Fig. 1A); and a lanyard having a first end, which is fixed at the compartment (Fig. 1A, a lanyard 60 is attached to the storage container 12).
Contino also discloses a fixing connector comprising a lanyard fixing portion and an oxygen fixing portion (See in annotated Fig. 1A below), but is silent on at least one fixing clip, wherein each of the at least one fixing clip comprises: a lanyard fixing portion; and at least one C-shaped oxygen hose fixing portion for releasably holding one or more oxygen hoses; for each of the at least one fixing clip, an opposing second end, which is fixed to the lanyard fixing portion of the respective fixing clip.
PNG
media_image1.png
370
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Courter teaches a hose retainer (36) for use in a aircraft emergency, which includes at least one fixing clip (Fig. 2, hose retainer 36), wherein each of the at least one fixing clip comprises: at least one C-shaped fixing portion (See in Courter Fig. 2, hose retainer 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oxygen fixing portion of Contino’s fixing connector with the hose retainer clamp ends of Courter in order to further provide better oxygen hose organization/operability and ensure proper mask deployment. A desired for improved mask organization is emphasized in Contino. (Contino et al. para. 1 lin. 15-21, oxygen tubes 29, reservoir bag 38, elastic strap 34 and lanyards 60, must be carefully folded and coiled so that the mask 16 deploys properly and does not become tangled during an emergency situation. The process of repacking masks is time-consuming and costly given the labor rates of aircraft technicians). The resultant modified system of Contino would have a single hose retainer 36 of Courter holding two mask hoses, wherein the back side of the single hose retainer 36 would be connected to the lanyard 60 at a “lanyard fixing portion” in a similar manner depicted in Fig. 1A of Contino.
Regarding claim 2, the modified system of Contino has the at least one C-shaped oxygen hose fixing portion is elastic ((Found in Courter Col. 3 lin. 59, hose retainer 36 is made of Teflon, See in Fig. 2, Teflon keeper(36)), allowing the one or more oxygen hoses to escape from the at least one C-shaped oxygen hose fixing portion, when being pulled (Found in Courter Col. 2 line 63-65, hose retainer 36 on its outer end onto which two oxygen mask hoses are held, See in Fig. 2, hose retainer 36).
Regarding claim 3, the modified system of Contino has for at least a subset of the at least one fixing clip, the fixing clip comprises one C-shaped oxygen hose fixing portion for releasably holding two oxygen hoses side-by-side (See in Courter Fig. 2, hose retainer 36 holds two oxygen hoses side-by-side).
Regarding claim 4, the modified system of Contino has the lanyard fixing portion of the fixing clip is arranged at a center portion of the fixing clip, in particular at a center portion of the one C-shaped oxygen hose fixing portion (See in Annotated Fig. 1A, the lanyard fixing portion of Contino would be located at the center of the back of retainer 36 of Courter in the modified device).
Regarding claim 5, the modified system of Contino has for at least a subset of the at least one fixing clip, the fixing clip comprises two C-shaped oxygen hose fixing portions for releasably holding one oxygen hose (Found in Courter Col. 2 line 62-63, a hose retainer 36 on its outer end onto which two oxygen mask hoses are held, See in Courter Fig. 2, Hose retainer 36 having two “c-shaped” openings for holding two oxygen tubes).
Regarding claim 6, the modified system of Contino has the lanyard fixing portion of the fixing clip is arranged between the two C-shaped oxygen hose fixing portions (See in Annotated Fig. 1A, the lanyard fixing portion of Contino would be located at the center of the back of retainer 36 (i.e. between the two “C-shaped” openings) of Courter in the modified device).
Regarding claim 7, the modified system of Contino has the two C-shaped oxygen hose fixing portions are arranged adjacent to each other and have a common orientation (Found in Courter Col. 2 line 62-63, a hose retainer 36 on its outer end onto which two oxygen mask hoses are held, See in Courter Fig. 2, hose retainer 36).
Regarding claim 13, the modified system of Contino has the at least one fixing clip is made of a plastic material (Found in Courter Col. 3 lin. 59, hose retainer 36 is made of teflon, See in Fig. 2, Teflon keeper(36). Telfon is considered a “plastic material”).
Regarding claim 14, the modified system of Contino has the lanyard fixing portion comprises a lanyard fixing opening, wherein the second end of the lanyard is in particular tied to the lanyard fixing opening (See in Annotated Fig. 1A, lanyard fixing portion is tied to an opening, which would be implemented in the modified device. The secondary reference of Courter provides an additional teaching of a lanyard fixing opening in Fig. 6, which depicts lanyard 38 connected to keeper 34 via an opening that serves as attachment point 39).
Regarding claim 15, the modified system of Contino has at least two fixing clips (See in Courter Fig. 2, Hose retainer 36 and 36A) and at least two lanyards(Contino et al. Fig. 1A, Lanyards 60), wherein the first ends of the at least two lanyards are in particular fixed to spatially separated fixing points of the compartment(Contino et al. Fig. 1A, Lanyards 60).
Regarding claim 16, the modified system of Contino is silent on a specific an oxygen supply, coupled to the at least one oxygen hose, wherein the oxygen supply is electrically triggered and/or electrically controlled during the supply of oxygen to the at least one passenger oxygen mask, wherein the oxygen supply is in particular triggered and/or controlled in response to a breath detection.
However, in another embodiment in Contino et al. teaches an oxygen supply (Contino et al. para. 44 line 2, a central oxygen supply), coupled to the at least one oxygen hose ((Contino et al. para. 44 line 13 1, hose assembly 280), wherein the oxygen supply is electrically triggered and/or electrically controlled during the supply of oxygen to the at least one passenger oxygen mask, wherein the oxygen supply is in particular triggered and/or controlled in response to a breath detection (Contino et al. para. 44 line 9-11, a valve may be inserted in the oxygen supply to prevent a sustained flow of oxygen out through a mask which is not being used, Contino et al. para. 44 line 20-24, The valve could also be electronic such that it would be activated by the user's drawing in a breath after donning the mask and creating a slight negative pressure in the mask and tubing, which would be sensed by the electronic switch allowing the oxygen to flow).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the emergency oxygen system of Contino et al. with the electronic system as taught by Contino et al. to create a system which is able to conserve oxygen by not delivering oxygen until the users reach for the mask and take an action such as breathing (Found in Contino et al. para. 44 line 4-6,).
Regarding claim 17, the modified system of Contino includes an aircraft comprising (Contino et al. para. 3 line 10-12, container 12 by aircraft technicians several times during the usable life of the container 12 and/or aircraft): a passenger cabin (Contino et al. Fig. 4, See door 160 leading to the inside of the aircraft cabin); and a plurality of aircraft emergency oxygen supply systems according to claim 1 (Contino et al. para. 3 line 1-2, emergency breathing mask deployment systems).
9. Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Contino et al.(US 20130074836 A1), in view of Courter(US 4154237 A), and further in view of Poulsen (US 5309604 A)
Regarding claim 8, the modified system of Contino has the emergency aircraft oxygen supply system of claim 5, but is silent on the two C-shaped oxygen hose fixing portions are arranged adjacent to each other and are angled with respect to each other, with an angle α between the two C-shaped oxygen hose fixing portions of between 40° and 180°.
However, Poulsen teaches a clip for organizing tubes which includes two C-shaped oxygen hose fixing portions are arranged adjacent to each other and are angled with respect to each other, with an angle α between the two C-shaped oxygen hose fixing portions of between 40° and 180° (Col. 4 line 39-42, the openings to the channels 32 and 40 are orthogonal from one another to permit easier, unobstructed coiling and uncoiling of tubing, Fig. 6, opening 32 and opening 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the emergency oxygen system of Contino et al. with the orientation of the clip openings of Contino with the arrangement of Poulsen (Poulsen Col. 4 line 41-42, to permit easier, unobstructed coiling and uncoiling of tubing) as taught by Poulsen during oxygen mask deployment.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Contino system discloses the modified emergency aircraft oxygen supply system of claim 8, wherein α is between 80° and 160° (Poulsen Col. 4 line 39-42, the openings to the channels 32 and 40 are orthogonal from one another to permit easier, unobstructed coiling and uncoiling of tubing, Poulsen Fig. 6, opening 32 and opening 40).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Contino et al. system discloses the modified emergency aircraft oxygen supply system of claim 9, but is silent on α being between 120° and 150°. However, as stated in the MPEP, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Additionally, applicant appears to have placed no added criticality on this range over the previously recited larger angle range. See in Specification [0020] and [0091].
10. Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Contino et al.(US 20130074836 A1), in view of Courter(US 4154237 A), and further in view of Atkinson et al.(US 9302074 B2).
Regarding claim 11, the modified system of Contino has the modified emergency aircraft oxygen supply system of claim 1, but is silent on at least a subset of the at least one oxygen hose, the respective oxygen hose comprises a shroud for positioning the fixing clip along the oxygen hose, wherein the respective oxygen hose in particular comprises two shroud portions for positioning the fixing clip there between.
However, Atkinson et al. teaches a split ball clip which comprises a shroud for positioning the fixing clip along the oxygen hose(Atkinson Col. 8 line 20-22, clip member 18 facilitates installation by providing a channel which easily slips over the nasal tube, See in Atkinson et al. Fig. 7C, Clip Member 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the emergency oxygen system of Contino et al. with two spit ball clips of Atkinson to provide guidance for correct hose position clipping providing assistance to aircraft technicians to repack masks in a timely manner.
Regarding claim 12, the modified system of Contino has the shroud is formed integrally with the respective oxygen hose, or wherein the shroud is attached to the respective oxygen hose(Atkinson Col. 8 line 20-22, clip member 18 facilitates installation by providing a channel which easily slips over the nasal tube, Atkinson Fig. 7C, Clip Member 18).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Levine (US 4481945 A), Krause et al. (US 20200317348 A1), and Rittner et al. (US 20190152610 A1). These references are various emergency oxygen systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEC ROBERT WAHL whose telephone number is (571)272-9880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. 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.
/A.R.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785