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 .
Drawings
Drawings are objected to and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. CRF 1.84 (l) Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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:
“lid locking device” in claim 4
“precision interlocking clamping devices” in claim 7
“strong clamping device” in claim 7
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.
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 § 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 1-13 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 limitations
“precision interlocking clamping devices”
“strong clamping device”
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-13 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 1-13 are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Re claim 1, the claim does not include a transitional phrase, such as “comprising”, “consisting of” or consisting essentially of”, which creates ambiguity regarding the scope of the claimed invention. Specifically, it is unclear whether the claim is open-ended (allowing additional unrecited elements) or closed (limited to only the elements recited). According to MPEP 2173.05€, a claim must have clear antecedent basis and must definite to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). In this case the absence of a transitional phrase leaves the scope of the claim unclear, which may render the boundaries of the claim indefinite. Furthermore, is unclear what if any limitation is actually included in the claimed “open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "directly from the earth’s surface". This limitation is unclear because is not clear as to what is directed from the earths surface.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the subsequent evaporative cooling effect". This limitation is unclear because is not clear as to what is directed from the earth’s surface.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the potential". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "its components". This limitation is unclear because is not clear as to what are “its components”.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "its" in line 3. This limitation is unclear because is not clear as to what applicant is referring to.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the utilization of self-regulation of body temperature". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "adverse heat related adverse heat related health conditions". This limitation is unclear because is not clear as to what is directed from the earth’s surface.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "comprises of". This limitation is unclear because is not clear if applicant means “comprises” or “consisting of”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the open air vehicles handlebars". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the frame". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the open air vehicle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "its" in line 2. This limitation is unclear because is not clear as to what applicant is referring to.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the utilization". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the water control manifold". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus is manually operated … activated by depressing the integral momentary push button on-off valve". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear as to what are the meets and bounds of the limitation. For example is unclear if there is infringement when one uses the apparatus or when one makes the apparatus. “was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means”. MPEP 2173.05(p) II.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the clamp on water control manifold". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the open air vehicle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus is activated, when the integral momentary push button on-off valve is depressed". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear as to what are the meets and bounds of the limitation. For example is unclear if there is infringement when one uses the apparatus or when one makes the apparatus. “was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means”. MPEP 2173.05(p) II.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the integral momentary push button on-off valve". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is read as depended from claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the water control manifold". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the commercially available remote multi-function manually pressurized water reservoir". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the main water supply tubing". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the water supply tubing(s)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the purpose". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the occupant(s)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the open air vehicle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "comprised of". This limitation is unclear because is not clear if applicant means “comprises” or “consisting of”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the water control manifold". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus’s precision interlocking clamp on water control manifold". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the open air vehicle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the male side". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the female side". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus’s precision interlocking clamp on water control manifold". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "consist of". This limitation is unclear because is not clear if applicant means “comprises” or “consisting of”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the open air vehicle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the apparatuses water control manifold". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the apparatuses". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a remote drinking nozzle" in line 7. This limitation is unclear because is not clear if applicant is referring to the previously mentioned “a remote drinking nozzle”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the purpose". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatuses manually pressurized commercially available multi-function". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 is indefinite by reference to an object that is variable such as “may be sized accordingly, larger or smaller to accommodate various open-air vehicle's remote location and availability”. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). In Miyazaki, the Board held that claims to a large printer were not sufficiently definite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "Pertaining to claim 2". This limitation is unclear and confusing.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatuses commercially available multi-functional remote water reservoir". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "may " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the commercially available remote water reservoir". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "Pertaining to claim 2". This limitation is unclear and confusing.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "may " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus’s water control manifold and or misting nozzle manifold(s)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the open air vehicle cooling mist apparatus". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "may " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the commercially available, multi-function manually pressurized remote water reservoirs integral momentary on-off push button lid". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the lid". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the misting nozzle manifold(s) and atomizing misting nozzle(s)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the occupant(s)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the open air vehicle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the subsequent evaporative cooling effect". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "an open air vehicle" in last line. This limitation is unclear because is not clear if applicant is referring to the previously mentioned “the open air vehicle”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The claim does not appear to introduced any new element to the claimed “open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The claim does not appear to introduced any new element to the claimed “open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The claim does not appear to introduced any new element to the claimed “open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The claim does not appear to introduced any new element to the claimed “open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The claim does not appear to introduced any new element to the claimed “open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The claim does not appear to introduced any new element to the claimed “open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chandler et al. (US 20110120676), hereinafter referred to as Chandler.
Re claim 1, Chandler teaches the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus (see e.g. Fig. 3) utilizes atomized water (e.g. ¶ 17, “When the fine spray reaches the user which may be either the driver or passenger of the vehicle, and an evaporative cooling effect may be achieved on and around the skin of the user to eliminate the effects of the weather. The cooling system may include a user activated switch in order to control the cooling system and may prevent overheating and discomfort. The fine spray may be generated from a fluid such as water or other appropriate fluid”), for the subsequent evaporative cooling effect (e.g. ¶ 17), while operating an open air vehicle (e.g. ¶ 21, “motorcycle 307”), in order to self-regulate body temperature (implicit; is also an intended result of the claim limitation and Chandler), therefore offsetting the potential for adverse heat related health conditions (implicit; is also an intended result of the claim limitation and Chandler), when exposed to solar reflective heat (e.g. reflected from the road, or from the metal of the motorcycle), mechanical heat (e.g. engine from the motorcycle), or directly from the earth’s surface (inherent).
Re claim 2, Chandler teaches the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus of claim 1, the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus and its components may be utilized for any recreational or work utility open air vehicle, for its subsequent evaporative cooling effect, and the utilization of self-regulation of body temperature, thus offsetting the potential for adverse heat related adverse heat related health conditions (inherent; further, intended use; furthermore an intended result of the claim limitation and Chandler).
Re claim 4, Chandler teaches the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus of claim 2, utilizes a commercially available multi-function, remote, manually pressurized water reservoir (e.g. 109), for its main water supply, suppling water directly to the apparatus by the utilization of a lid locking device (e.g. 133), placing the commercially available manually pressurized water reservoir in a normally open position, allowing water to flow freely to the water control manifold (implicit; further, intended use).
Re claim 5, Chandler teaches the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus of claim 2, the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus is manually operated, utilizing a normally closed, momentary, push button on-off control valve (117), integral to the clamp on water control manifold (101), mounted to the open air vehicle, activated by depressing the integral momentary push button on-off valve (see e.g. Fig 3).
Re claim 6, Chandler teaches the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus of claim 2, the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus is activated, when the integral momentary push button on-off valve is depressed, on the water control manifold, therefore allowing pressurized water to flow directly from the commercially available remote multi-function manually pressurized water reservoir, through the main water supply tubing, directly to the water supply tubing(s) attached to misting nozzle manifold(s) and integral atomizing misting nozzle(s), therefore suppling a fine atomized water mist directly to the occupant(s) of the open air vehicle, for the purpose of utilization of the subsequent evaporative cooling effect, for the occupant(s) of the open air vehicle (see e.g. Fig 1-3).
Re claim 7, Chandler teaches the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus of claim 2, the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus is activated, when the integral momentary push button on-off valve is depressed, on the water control manifold, therefore allowing pressurized water to flow directly from the commercially available remote multi-function manually pressurized water reservoir, through the main water supply tubing, directly to the water supply tubing(s) attached to misting nozzle manifold(s) and integral atomizing misting nozzle(s), therefore suppling a fine atomized water mist directly to the occupant(s) of the open air vehicle, for the purpose of utilization of the subsequent evaporative cooling effect, for the occupant(s) of the open air vehicle (see e.g. Fig 1-3).
Re claim 8, Chandler teaches the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus of claim 2, the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus’s precision interlocking clamp on water control manifold (101), and misting nozzle manifold(s) consist of an open back, "bird beak type”, type clamp, therefore allowing for cabling and wiring to run behind the apparatus, when the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus is attached, to the open air vehicle (see e.g. Fig 1-3).
Re claim 9, Chandler teaches the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus of claim 2, the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus may include, a remote drinking nozzle, utilizing flexible medical grade tubing as a main drinking water supply line, connected plurally to the main water supply line located between the commercially available remote multi-function, manually pressurized water reservoir and the apparatuses water control manifold, via: a medical grade tee fitting; the main drinking water supply line leads up from the apparatuses, main water supply line, directly to a remote drinking nozzle, for the purpose of individual hydration while operating an open air vehicle (see e.g. Fig 1-3).
Re claim 10, Chandler teaches the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatus of claim 2, the open air vehicle occupant cooling mist apparatuses manually pressurized commercially available multi-function, manually pressurized remote water reservoir, may be sized accordingly, larger or smaller to accommodate various open-air vehicle's remote location and availability (see e.g. Fig 1-3).
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 NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 02/17/2025