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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 01/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the oxygen tank secured within the superstructure via netting per claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Fig. 7 depicts a netting however lacks the superstructure.
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.
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) 1 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doss (4,986,267).
With regard to claim 1, Doss discloses an oxygen tank flotation device (10) that allows a user to swim or exercise in water without risk of an oxygen tank becoming submerged or tipping over into the water (fig. 1), the oxygen tank flotation device comprising:
a body component (12); and a superstructure component (48); wherein the body component and the superstructure component comprise at least one continuous opening that receives an oxygen tank (figs. 1-4); wherein once the oxygen tank is secured within the superstructure component, the user can connect a cannula to a regulator of the oxygen tank and then secure the cannula around the nose and ears of the user before turning on the oxygen tank (figs. 1-2); and further wherein the oxygen tank flotation device keeps the oxygen tank afloat and protects the regulator of the oxygen tank from being submerged in the water (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 9, Doss further discloses a clip (66/68) that secures a valve tool.
With regard to claim 10, Doss further discloses a tether strap (62/64) and a clip (60) secured to the superstructure component or the body component.
With regard to claim 11, Doss further discloses the oxygen tank is secured within the superstructure component via a netting (14).
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) 2-3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doss (4,986,267) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
With regard to claim 2, Doss discloses the invention substantially as claimed as well as changing the shape of the device (col. 6, lines 44-52) however fails to explicitly state the body component is square.
As discussed in applicant’s specification, AAPA discloses it is known within the art to provide a square body (para 0046).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Doss and construct the body from any desired shaped, to include square, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
With regard to claim 3, Doss further discloses the body component comprises a shallow interior component and an elevated perimeter component for securing the superstructure component (figs. 2-3).
With regard to claim 13, Doss discloses the invention substantially as claimed however fails to explicitly state a plurality of indicia.
As discussed in applicant’s specification, AAPA discloses it is known within the art to utilize indicia (para 0065).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Doss and utilize indica as taught in AAPA, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the expected benefit of advertising the device.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doss (4,986,267) in view of Erickson et al. (2019/0269947).
With regard to claim 12, Doss discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a base structure and a plurality of wheels for transportation.
Erickson discloses an oxygen tank flotation device comprising a base structure (fig. 6) and a plurality of wheels (5) for transportation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Doss and utilize a base with a plurality of wheels as taught in Erickson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide means to readily transport the oxygen tank to its desired location.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art, either alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of the claim(s). Flotation devices for oxygen tanks are known such as those taught by Doss (4,986,267), Cummings (5,299,721), Erickson et al. (2019/0269947), and McJunkin (9,187,160). However, the cited prior art lacks superstructure that comprises four curved legs that come together to form an arched structure that suspends over the shallow interior component of the body component as required by the claim(s) and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the prior art to achieve applicant’s invention without the benefit of hindsight and applicant’s own disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
02/27/2026