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 .
This office action is in response to the claims filed 1/22/24. Claims 1-25 are pending in the instant application.
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: “alert device” in claims 8, 17, and 24. The structure set forth for performing the alert function is found in para. 00119-00120 such as a bell, speaker, light emitter etc..
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 § 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.
(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) 1-3 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schneider et al. (2011/0146686).
Regarding claim 1, Schneider discloses an emergency oxygen system for an internal cabin of a vehicle (see Fig. 1-13, abstract for example) which includes a housing including one or more compartments (see Fig. 3-4, 6-7, and 12 for example, housing 32 defining compartment(s) 34, see para. 0070); one or more oxygen assemblies including a mask and a fluid conduit, the mask configured to be stowed within and deployed from the one or more compartments (see Fig. 12 showing mask 24 and fluid conduit connecting mask to oxygen line 30, see para. 0075, fluid conduit 26 in Fig. 2, para. 0059, Fig. 2 showing the deployed state of oxygen assemblies defined by the mask 24 and fluid conduit 26); and a door moveably secured to the housing and configured to pivot in an outboard direction from a closed position to an open position during a deployment event (see Fig. 1 showing stowed/closed position and Fig. 2 showing open position during a deployment event in which the door of assemblies not in the middle section, pivots in an outboard direction, see Fig. 3-4 showing closed and open positions, respectively of outboard pivoting door 36, see also Fig. 6-7 and 12, see para. 0070, 0073).
Regarding claim 2, the Schneider system’s door is pivotally coupled to the housing at an outboard surface (see Fig. 2-3, 6-7, and 12 showing door 34 pivotally coupled to housing 32 at the outboard surface).
Regarding claim 3, the Schneider system includes a pivotal coupling between the door and the housing which is closer to an outboard wall of the internal cabin than an aisle (see Fig. 12 showing pivotal coupling best, Fig. 2-3 and 6-7 also showing the pivotal coupling/pivotal movement of door 36 relative to housing 32 and which is located closer to an outboard wall of the internal cabin than an aisle).
Regarding claim 11, Schneider discloses a vehicle (see Fig. 1-2, abstract; “aircraft”) which includes an internal cabin (see Fig. 1-2 showing internal cabin, see para. 0056); and an emergency oxygen system for an internal cabin of a vehicle (see Fig. 1-13, abstract for example) which includes a housing including one or more compartments (see Fig. 3-4, 6-7, and 12 for example, housing 32 defining compartment(s) 34, see para. 0070); one or more oxygen assemblies including a mask and a fluid conduit, the mask configured to be stowed within and deployed from the one or more compartments (see Fig. 12 showing mask 24 and fluid conduit connecting mask to oxygen line 30, see para. 0075, fluid conduit 26 in Fig. 2, para. 0059, Fig. 2 showing the deployed state of oxygen assemblies defined by the mask 24 and fluid conduit 26); and a door moveably secured to the housing and configured to pivot in an outboard direction from a closed position to an open position during a deployment event (see Fig. 1 showing stowed/closed position and Fig. 2 showing open position during a deployment event in which the door of assemblies not in the middle section, pivots in an outboard direction, see Fig. 3-4 showing closed and open positions, respectively of outboard pivoting door 36, see also Fig. 6-7 and 12, see para. 0070, 0073).
Regarding claim 12, the Schneider device’s door is pivotally coupled to the housing at an outboard surface (see Fig. 2-3, 6-7, and 12 showing door 34 pivotally coupled to housing 32 at the outboard surface), and a pivotal coupling between the door and the housing which is closer to an outboard wall of the internal cabin than an aisle (see Fig. 12 showing pivotal coupling best, Fig. 2-3 and 6-7 also showing the pivotal coupling/pivotal movement of door 36 relative to housing 32 and which is located closer to an outboard wall of the internal cabin than an aisle).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jong et al. (4,023,874).
Regarding claim 20, Jong discloses an emergency oxygen system for an internal cabin of a vehicle (see Fig. 1-2, abstract, and col. 1 ln. 66 through col. 2 ln. 9) which includes a housing including one or more compartments (see Fig. 2, housing 10 defining compartment therein, see col. 2 ln. 5); one or more oxygen assemblies including a mask and a fluid conduit and configured to be stowed within and deployed from the one or more compartments (see Fig. 2 showing a stowed position of a mask 46 and fluid conduit 50 defining an oxygen assembly, see col. 2 ln. 46-53; col. 2 ln. 54-65 and col. 3 ln. 24-29 disclosing the deployed configuration); a door moveably secured to the housing and configured to move from a closed position to an open position during a deployment event (see Fig. 1-2, door 34, see col. 2 ln. 54-65 and col. 3 ln. 24-29); and one or more pouches secured to an interior surface of the door and coiled tubing of the fluid conduit is retained by the one or more pouches when the mask is stowed within the one or more compartments (see Fig. 2 showing mask and coiled tubing 50 stowed within one or more pouch 14, see col. 2 ln. 10-19 and which is secured to an interior surface of door 34 indirectly through spacer 17, col. 2 ln. 10-19).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Boehme et al. (2,934,293).
Regarding claim 24, Boehme discloses an emergency oxygen system for an internal cabin of a vehicle (see Fig. 1-7 and col. 1 ln. 15-21 for example) which includes a housing including one or more compartments (see Fig. 4-6, housing defining compartment 24, see col. 4 ln. 43-51); one or more oxygen assemblies including a mask and a fluid conduit and configured to be stowed within and deployed from the one or more compartments (see Fig. 5-6 showing stowed position of mask 12 and fluid conduit 12a defining an oxygen assembly, see col. 3 ln. 50-70 and col. 4 ln. 43-51); a door moveably secured to the housing and configured to move from a closed position to an open position during a deployment event (see Fig. 3-7, door 28, see col. 4 ln. 52 through col. 5 ln. 9); and an alert device operatively coupled to the one or more oxygen assemblies and configured to emit a response indicating that oxygen is flowing to the mask (see col. 3 ln. 63-70 and col. 4 ln. 28-42, pressure switch 14 trips to close a circuit when flow of oxygen is present and alarms/signals in the aircraft, alarm can be audible or visual illumination).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Jong.
Regarding claim 4, the Schneider system is silent as to including one or more pouches secured to an interior surface of the door and coiled tubing of the fluid conduit is retained by the one or more pouches when the mask is stowed within the one or more compartments; however, Jong teaches a similar device which includes this feature (see Jong: Fig. 2 showing mask and coiled tubing 50 stowed within one or more pouch 14, see col. 2 ln. 10-19 and which is secured to an interior surface of door 34 indirectly through spacer 17, col. 2 ln. 10-19). Thus 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 Schneider system to include the one or more pouches, as taught by Jong, in order to provide easy inspection and repacking of the emergency oxygen assembly (see Jong col. 1 ln. 5-41).
Regarding claim 13, the Schneider device/vehicle is silent as to including one or more pouches secured to an interior surface of the door and coiled tubing of the fluid conduit is retained by the one or more pouches when the mask is stowed within the one or more compartments; however, Jong teaches a similar device which includes this feature (see Jong: Fig. 2 showing mask and coiled tubing 50 stowed within one or more pouch 14, see col. 2 ln. 10-19 and which is secured to an interior surface of door 34 indirectly through spacer 17, col. 2 ln. 10-19). Thus 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 Schneider device/vehicle to include the one or more pouches, as taught by Jong, in order to provide easy inspection and repacking of the emergency oxygen assembly (see Jong col. 1 ln. 5-41).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider and Jong as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, and further in view of Suarato (2018/0273179).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Schneider system is silent as to the pouch(s) being formed of an elastic material; however, Suarato discloses a similar emergency oxygen system which includes pouches formed of an elastic material (see Suarato para. 0018). Thus 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 modified Schneider system’s pouch to be formed of an elastic material, as taught by Suarato, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Schneider system to perform equally as well.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Schneider device/vehicle is silent as to the pouch(s) being formed of an elastic material; however, Suarato discloses a similar emergency oxygen system which includes pouches formed of an elastic material (see Suarato para. 0018). Thus 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 modified Schneider device’s pouch to be formed of an elastic material, as taught by Suarato, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Schneider system to perform equally as well.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Boehme.
Regarding claim 8, the Schneider system is silent as to including an alert device operatively coupled to the one or more oxygen assemblies and configured to emit a response indicating that oxygen is flowing to the mask; however, Boehme discloses a similar system including this feature (see Boehme col. 3 ln. 63-70 and col. 4 ln. 28-42, pressure switch 14 trips to close a circuit when flow of oxygen is present and alarms/signals in the aircraft, alarm can be audible or visual illumination). 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 Schneider system to include an alert device, as taught by Boehme, in order to provide notification to passengers of an emergency situation (Boehme col. 3 ln. 63-70 and col. 4 ln. 28-42).
Regarding claim 17, the Schneider device/vehicle is silent as to including an alert device operatively coupled to the one or more oxygen assemblies and configured to emit a response indicating that oxygen is flowing to the mask; however, Boehme discloses a similar system including this feature (see Boehme col. 3 ln. 63-70 and col. 4 ln. 28-42, pressure switch 14 trips to close a circuit when flow of oxygen is present and alarms/signals in the aircraft, alarm can be audible or visual illumination). 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 Schneider device/vehicle to include an alert device, as taught by Boehme, in order to provide notification to passengers of an emergency situation (Boehme col. 3 ln. 63-70 and col. 4 ln. 28-42).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider and Boehme as applied to claims 8 and 17 above, and further in view of Volmer et al. (2017/0001048).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Schneider system is silent as to the alert device being a bell; however, Volmer discloses a respiratory device with an alert/alarm device in the form of a bell (see Volmer para. 0046). 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 modified Schneider system’s alert device to be a bell, as taught by Volmer, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Schneider system to perform equally as well.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Schneider device/vehicle is silent as to the alert device being a bell; however, Volmer discloses a respiratory device with an alert/alarm device in the form of a bell (see Volmer para. 0046). 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 modified Schneider device’s alert device to be a bell, as taught by Volmer, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Schneider device/vehicle to perform equally as well.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Hay et al. (3,073,301).
Regarding claim 10, the Schneider system is silent as to the compartment(s) including a clip secured to the top wall configured to removably retain a portion of tubing of the fluid conduit; however, Hay discloses a similar emergency oxygen system which includes a compartment with inner/top wall including a clip to secure the mask and tubing (see Hay Fig. 1-2, clip 32, col. 5 ln. 9-39 for example). 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 Schneider system to include a clip, as taught by Hay, in order to provide a mounting connection for the mask within the compartment (Hay col. 5 ln. 9-39).
Regarding claim 19, the Schneider device/vehicle is silent as to the compartment(s) including a clip secured to the top wall configured to removably retain a portion of tubing of the fluid conduit; however, Hay discloses a similar emergency oxygen system which includes a compartment with inner/top wall including a clip to secure the mask and tubing (see Hay Fig. 1-2, clip 32, col. 5 ln. 9-39 for example). 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 Schneider device/vehicle to include a clip, as taught by Hay, in order to provide a mounting connection for the mask within the compartment (Hay col. 5 ln. 9-39).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jong in view of Suarato.
Regarding claim 21, the Jong system is silent as to the pouch(s) being formed of an elastic material; however, Suarato discloses a similar emergency oxygen system which includes pouches formed of an elastic material (see Suarato para. 0018). Thus 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 Jong system’s pouch to be formed of an elastic material, as taught by Suarato, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Jong system to perform equally as well.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehme in view of Volmer.
Regarding claim 25, the Boehme system is silent as to the alert device being a bell; however, Volmer discloses a respiratory device with an alert/alarm device in the form of a bell (see Volmer para. 0046). 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 Boehme system’s alert device to be a bell, as taught by Volmer, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Boehme system to perform equally as well.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 15-16, and 22-23 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.
Reasons for Allowance
When read in light of the limitations of the claimed emergency oxygen system/vehicle including emergency oxygen system, the prior art does not disclose, either alone or suggest in combination an emergency oxygen system including a housing including one or more compartments having one or more oxygen assemblies including a mask and a fluid conduit stowed therein for deployment therefrom, a door moveably secured to the housing and configured to move from a closed position to an open position during a deployment event, one or more pouches secured to an interior surface of the door and coiled tubing of the fluid conduit is retained by the pouch(es) when the mask is stowed within the compartment(s), the pouch(es) including longitudinal securing straps connected to diagonal retaining straps which cross at a junction as set forth in claims 6, 15, and 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Fischer (7,621,275) and Lang et al. (2012/0325217) disclose emergency oxygen systems for aircraft which include doors which hinge/pivot in an outboard direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights