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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Ln. 7-8 recites “the passing of the breathable gas” which should read “passing of the breathable gas” as it is a first introduction
Claim 2, Ln. 3 recites “the interface” and Ln. 4 recites “said interface” which should respectively read “the annular interface” and “said annular interface” for consistency with claim 1
Claim 4, Ln. 7 recites “the interface” which should read “the annular interface” for consistency with claim 1
Claim 6, Ln. 1 recites “said interface” which should read “said annular interface” for consistency with claim 1
Claim 9, Ln. 6 recites “the gas” which should read “the breathable gas” for consistency with Ln. 2 of the claim
Claim 9, Ln. 9 recites “a breathable gas” which should read “the breathable gas” following after Ln. 2 of the claim
Claim 9, Ln. 15 recites “the passing of the breathable gas” which should read “passing of the breathable gas” as it is a first introduction
Claim 10, Ln. 9 recites “the passing of the breathable gas” which should read “passing of the breathable gas” as it is a first introduction
Claim 10, Ln. 25 recites “depressurized; supplying” which should read “depressurized, supplying” (with a comma)
Claim 10, Ln. 25 recites “a breathable gas” which should read “the breathable gas” following after Ln. 3 of the claim
Claim 10, Ln. 27 recites “the gas” which should read “the breathable gas” for consistency with Ln. 3 of the claim
Claim 10, Ln. 28 recites “the gas” which should read “the breathable gas” for consistency with Ln. 3 of the claim
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the supply conduit” in Ln. 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the conduit” assuming reference to the earlier recitation in Ln. 2 of the claim. The same change should also be made to claims 2 and 3.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the supply conduit” in Ln. 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the conduit” assuming reference to the earlier recitation in Ln. 9 of the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the supply conduit” in Ln. 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the conduit” assuming reference to the earlier recitation in Ln. 3 of the claim. The same change should also be made in Ln. 29 of the claim.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “system for moving the balancing chamber towards said abutment” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure for the “system for moving the balancing chamber towards said abutment” is best understood from the specification as at least: movement system 5 which comprises a spring 51 and/or a manually operable pusher 52 (¶0072).
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (CN 205323043 U; citations from attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a pressure reducing system (Fig. 1; Pg. 3-4) for a breathing apparatus comprising: a conduit (#7) for supplying a breathable gas under pressure (Pg. 4); a mouthpiece (#13) for inspiration of the breathable gas by a user; a valve poppet (#8, 17) operatively interposed between the conduit and the mouthpiece (Fig. 1), the valve poppet being movable between: a closed position (Pg. 4 – decompressing spring releases seal, e.g. with #8 moved rightward in Fig. 1 until sealed against abutment of #7), in which the valve poppet prevents the passing of the breathable gas from the conduit to the mouthpiece, and at least one open position (as shown in Fig. 1) in which the valve poppet permits the passing of the breathable gas from the conduit to the mouthpiece, said conduit comprising an abutment (see annotated Fig. 1 below) against which the valve poppet abuts in the closed position and from which the valve poppet is distanced in said at least one open position, and said abutment defining an annular interface which in the closed position is in contact with the valve poppet in order to perform a fluid-dynamic sealing action that prevents the passing of the breathable gas from the conduit to the mouthpiece (Pg. 4 –sealed until force of spring overcome, e.g. with #8 moved rightward in Fig. 1 until sealed against abutment of #7); and a balancing chamber (#16) that defines a pressure balancing zone, said valve poppet being at least in part interposed between the abutment and the balancing chamber (Fig. 1); the valve poppet defining a passage (#18) that places the conduit and the pressure balancing chamber in fluid communication (Fig. 1; Pg. 4), wherein a section of said passage, in at least one of said open positions extends in the conduit beyond said annular interface (Fig. 1 #17 of #8 extends into #7 beyond the abutment).
PNG
media_image1.png
477
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xu – Annotated Fig. 1 showing “abutment”
Applicant may wish to consider specifying the breathable gas as traveling linearly from the conduit to the passage, or some related language, in order to overcome Xu.
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses said valve poppet is movable between the closed position and a position of maximum distancing from the annular interface (Fig. 1) and said passage extends towards the supply conduit beyond said annular interface for at least 75% of the positions assumed between the closed position and the position of maximum distancing (Fig. 1 – #17 is always “beyond” the abutment).
Regarding claim 3, Xu discloses said passage extends in the supply conduit beyond said annular interface in all of said open positions of the valve poppet (Fig. 1 – #17 is always “beyond” the abutment).
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses an actuator (#9; Pg. 4) for shifting the valve poppet along a travel path having as opposite travel limits: the closed position; and a position of distancing reached (spring 9 causes #8, 17 to move) without modifying the positioning of the balancing chamber (#16 never moves locations), said passage extending in the conduit beyond the annular interface in any position of said travel path (Fig. 1 – #17 is always “beyond” the abutment).
Regarding claim 5, Xu discloses a system (#9; Pg. 4) for moving the balancing chamber towards said abutment in order to move the valve poppet from said at least one open position to the closed position upon the occurrence of at least one particular operating condition (e.g. when no input gas is being received spring 9 moves #8 into sealing position with the abutment) wherein no mechanical spring is present between the valve poppet and the balancing chamber (Fig. 1 #16 does not contact any spring).
Regarding claim 6, Xu discloses said annular interface lies in an imaginary plane (Fig. 1 vertical) orthogonal to a shifting direction of the valve poppet (Fig. 1 horizontal).
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses said valve poppet comprises a main portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below), and said passage comprises: an inner tubular portion (#18 travels through the “main portion” of the below annotated figure) obtained in said main portion; and a tubular extension (see annotated Fig. 1 below) outside the main portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
477
587
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Xu – Annotated Fig. 1 showing “main portion” and “tubular extension”
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses said tubular extension is in one body with said inner tubular portion (Fig. 1).
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 205323043 U; citations from attached machine translation) in view of Christianson (U.S. Patent 4862884).
Regarding claim 9, Xu discloses a breathing system (Fig. 1 and discussed context of use underwater; Pg. 1-4) comprising: a tank of a breathable gas (Pg. 3-4 – compressed gas delivered underwater inherently comes from a tank); a second pressure reduction stage (Fig. 1; Pg. 3-4) situated downstream of the tank and comprising a pressure reducing system (Fig. 1; Pg. 3-4); and a tube connecting the tank to the second stage and in which the gas moves (Pg. 4 – compressed gas delivered underwater inherently flows through a tube which will provide flow into Fig. 1 #14), wherein the pressure reducing system includes: a conduit (#7) for supplying a breathable gas under pressure (Pg. 4); a mouthpiece (#13) for inspiration of the breathable gas by a user; a valve poppet (#8, 17) operatively interposed between the conduit and the mouthpiece (Fig. 1), the valve poppet being movable between: a closed position (Pg. 4 – decompressing spring releases seal, e.g. with #8 moved rightward in Fig. 1 until sealed against abutment of #7), in which the valve poppet prevents the passing of the breathable gas from the conduit to the mouthpiece, and at least one open position (as shown in Fig. 1) in which the valve poppet permits the passing of the breathable gas from the conduit to the mouthpiece, said conduit comprising an abutment (see annotated Fig. 1 in rejection of claim 1 above) against which the valve poppet abuts in the closed position and from which the valve poppet is distanced in said at least one open position, and said abutment defining an annular interface which in the closed position is in contact with the valve poppet in order to perform a fluid-dynamic sealing action that prevents the passing of the breathable gas from the conduit to the mouthpiece (Pg. 4 –sealed until force of spring overcome, e.g. with #8 moved rightward in Fig. 1 until sealed against abutment of #7); and a balancing chamber (#16) that defines a pressure balancing zone, said valve poppet being at least in part interposed between the abutment and the balancing chamber (Fig. 1); the valve poppet defining a passage (#18) that places the conduit and the pressure balancing chamber in fluid communication (Fig. 1; Pg. 4), wherein a section of said passage, in at least one of said open positions extends in the supply conduit beyond said annular interface (Fig. 1 #17 of #8 extends into #7 beyond the abutment).
Xu fails to disclose a first pressure reduction stage situated downstream of the tank and upstream of the second pressure reduction stage.
Christianson teaches a scuba system (Fig. 1; Col. 4, Ln. 37-47) including a tank (#11), a first pressure reduction stage (#12) situated downstream of the tank, and a second pressure reduction stage (#14) situated downstream of the first pressure reduction stage. Christianson teaches this ordered arrangement of parts as conventional in a scuba system (Col. 1, Ln. 18-31).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Xu a first pressure reduction stage situated downstream of the tank and upstream of the second pressure reduction stage based upon this being a conventional ordering of parts as in a scuba system in view of Christianson.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10 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 10, the prior art fails to teach or suggest a method of pressurization including all steps and elements recited by the instant claim.
The above cited Xu et al. (CN 205323043 U) is the closest prior art to the instant claim. However, the interaction between the claimed passage, conduit, and valve poppet are meaningfully different in the instantly disclosed invention than in Xu. Specifically, Xu fails to teach or suggest at least “intercepting at least a part of the breathable gas coming from the conduit through said passage which extends beyond said annular interface and conveying the part of the breathable gas to the balancing chamber in order to bring said valve poppet into contact with said abutment and close off the passing of the breathable gas from the conduit to the mouthpiece.
In Xu incoming gas traveling from #14 and along #15 can enter into the bottom opening of #18 and then cause a force on gas within #16. However, that gas motion and action will not be acting to “bring said valve poppet into contact with said abutment and close off the passing of the breathable gas from the conduit to the mouthpiece.” Rather, adding pressurized gas along #18 into #16 of Xu will be expected to maintain the valve in an open position instead of the claimed moving of the valve poppet to close off the passing of the breathable gas.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO-892 for additional attached references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D BOECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-0376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 4:00 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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785