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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because legal phraseology, i.e., “comprises”, on line 2, should be avoided in the abstract. 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: 1) paragraph [0010] should be replaced by descriptive language that does not refer to the claims; 2) on page 8, last line, reference numeral “6” should be changed to –5--; and 3) paragraph [0061] should be deleted since the reference numerals should appear within the detailed description of the invention.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
In claim 1, applicant uses the phrase “can be” at multiple locations, which places into question whether the elements associated therewith may be optional and therefore ignored when interpreting the scope of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “at least one fan”, and the claim also recites “preferably two fans”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation “a u-shaped element”, and the claim also recites “preferably upwardly directed legs of the u-shaped element”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
Claim 17 uses the phrase “can be” which places into question whether the element associated therewith is optional, and therefore can be ignored when interpreting the claim scope.
Claim 18 is a method claim dependent from an apparatus claim, which is acceptable, however, claim 18 does not recite a single manipulative step of the claimed method and therefore is vague and indefinite.
Claim 19, also a method claim, also fails to recite any manipulative step of the method and therefore is vague and indefinite.
Claim 20 is recited as a method claim, but only recites wherein clauses, without stating a single manipulative step of the supposed method, which renders the claim vague and indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Winslow.
Winslow (Figs. 1-3) discloses a foam generating device having al least two vertically arranged levels that provide foam generation surfaces (17) with openings (22), a fan (15) for blowing air through the foam generation surfaces, and nozzles for distributing a foam generation solution (water and a foam forming composition) onto the inclined surfaces of the foam forming surfaces, the surfaces being inclined at an angle of between 5 and 20 degrees relative to the horizontal plane (see Fig. 1) (claims 1-3). The surfaces (17) form wedge shaped cavities that interact with the air blown by the fan (claims 11 and 12). The reference is applicable for generating a foam material for wellness (firefighting) purposes, as set forth by method claim 18, and the apparatus is useable on any chosen foam generation material, including coconut soap, if so desired, as set forth by instant claim 19, which is not an actual method claim, since it does not recite any understood manipulative step of a foam forming process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winslow.
Winslow (Figs. 1-3) as applied above substantially discloses applicant’s invention as recited by instant claims 13-15, and 17, except for the cross-sectional shape or size of the openings, and the prospect of providing the device with battery power capability.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it to have been well within the purview of the prior art at the time of the filing of the application, to construct the foam forming generation surfaces of the Winslow apparatus with appropriately sized and shaped openings, including the unremarkable sizes and shape, as set forth by instant claims 13-15, to facilitate the optimal formation of foam based upon the materials being worked on and the purposes of the foam being formed. Furthermore, wherein virtually every type of device known at the time of the filing of the application, that requires power to actuate the device, has been conceived as being powered by battery means, to allow for portability of the device, it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to provide the apparatus of Winslow, with on-board battery power means, such that the device would be useable in areas not serviced by the electrical grid, in the case of Winslow, when fighting a brush fire in areas not serviced by the electrical grid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10, 16, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/C.S.B/1-10-26
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776