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 .
The amendment filled 03/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10 and 18-20 have been cancelled. Claims 11 and 15 have been amended. Applicant added new claims 21-29. Therefore, claims 11- 17 and 21-29 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claims 11-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson, US (6062342) in view of Young, US (5915768), and further in view of Coulthard, US (2012/0305333).
In regards to claim 11 Dobson discloses:
A method for assisting in removing an individual trapped in material in a confined space (claim 6; Dobson) comprising:
unrolling a rescue device having a sheet (12 described as “a sheet” in Dobson) from an undeployed position to a deployed position (as described in Col 3; LL 50-54; highlighted excerpt below; with the device when being in the tightly rolled position is considered the undeployed position and the unrolled as described in line 52 of the excerpt below, it is considered in the deployed position), wherein the rescue device (10) has a larger diameter in the deployed position than in the undeployed position (since it “unrolls” from the undeployed position);
inserting a projection edge (front edge of bolt 32) of a projection (bolt 32) extending outward from a first end of the sheet of the rescue device {as 32 extends out from first end (right hand side edge/end, end of section 18 of sheet 12; fig. 1; see annotated drawings below) with its head inserted in first end} (insertion steps as described in Col 3 LL 54-58; see highlighted excerpt below) through a first through aperture (aperture 26 on left hand side end of sheet 12 through which bolt 32 passes as shown in fig. 1) near a second end of the sheet (left hand side vertical end/edge, end of section 16 of the sheet 12; fig. 1; see annotated drawings below),
engaging a securing element (nut 34) of the projection with the sheet to partially secure the projection (32) within the first aperture (26), wherein the securing element prevents the projection from being retracted back through the first through aperture (when nut 34 is secured);
inserting an edge of the enclosure of the rescue device into the material in the confined space (pushes the device 10 downward into the grain; Col 3 LL 60-61 and as recited in claim 6; Dobson; excerpt of claim 6 provided below);
placing the enclosure adjacent to and around the trapped individual, wherein the rescue device provides a barrier between the material and the trapped individual (second highlighted portion of the excerpt provided below of also claim 6; Dobson); and
allowing the trapped individual to be removed from the material in the confined space (third highlighted portion of the excerpt provided below of also claim 6; Dobson).
PNG
media_image1.png
208
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
185
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
761
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 11 Dobson does not disclose the projection edge of the projection extending laterally outward and passing through two apertures on the second end of the sheet.
Young teaches projection edge (tip of 11; see annotated drawings of fig. 7 below) of a projection (11) extending laterally outward from a first end of the sheet (at sheet edges 9/10 as shown in fig. 4; where 11 extends laterally; in the same manner as in the current invention) of the rescue device through a first through aperture (12; fig. 7) and a second through aperture (13; fig. 7) near a second end of a sheet (4).
And in the alternative, if it was found that Dobson does not disclose “engaging a securing element of the projection with the sheet to partially secure the projection within the first and second through apertures to form an enclosure, wherein the securing element prevents the projection from being retracted back through the first through aperture”.
It is submitted that Young teaches engaging a securing element (see annotated drawings below) of the projection with the sheet to partially secure the projection within the first and second through apertures (12 and 13 as shown in fig. 4) to form an enclosure (as shown in intact configuration in figs. 2-4), wherein the securing element prevents the projection from being retracted back through the first through aperture (edges of securing element as shown in annotated drawings below prevent retraction of 11 back through apertures 12 and 13).
PNG
media_image4.png
248
471
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
566
625
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute projection/fastening means of the rescue device of Dobson with the double slot design taught by Young, for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to take advantage of a secure attachment that can be easily and quickly attached/detached without the use of tools in times of an emergency where the right tool may not be readily available and precious minutes could be lost while trying to locate said tools. Consequently, the combination above teaches the securing element partially secures the projection within the first and second through apertures.
In regards to claim 11 Dobson and Young do not teach the edge being a serrated edge and a plurality of hand receiving areas.
Coulthard teaches serrated edge (arcuate sections 24; according to the definition of serration as obtained from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/serration ; provided below).
PNG
media_image6.png
140
459
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a plurality of hand receiving areas (20; described as hand hold openings) in the upper portion of the sheet (fig. 7).
PNG
media_image7.png
540
352
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the serrated edge and the hand receiving areas taught by Coulthard onto the lower and upper portions of the rescue device of Dobson respectively for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for easier insertion of the device into the material where turning the cylindrical sheet back and forth at the serrated edges would ease the insertion versus the flat uniform lower edge of Dobson, and to provide a more comfortable hold/grasp for the rescuer’s and/or the rescuee’s hands. The modification above consequently teaches partially grasping at least one of a plurality of hand receiving areas (20; Coulthard) to maneuver the rescue device substantially above the individual trapped in material in the confined space (claim 6; Dobson).
In regards to claim 12 Dobson does not explicitly disclose the rescue device is initially in a rolled configuration having a diameter between 10 and 19 inches. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the undeployed configuration (before it is unrolled into the deployed/in-use configuration) of the sheet of Dobson to have a diameter between 10 and 19 inches, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that having sheet be at 10 and 19 inches in diameter when in the rolled/undeployed state would predictably provide for the device to occupy lesser space which would in turn provide for a clear advantage for storage and transportation purposes.
In regards to claim 13 Young teaches the securing element is a clip (tip of 11; at least according to the definition of clip as obtained from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/clip ).
PNG
media_image8.png
178
386
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 14 Young teaches the securing element is a stopper (where the flat edges forming tip of 11 acts as a stopper).
In regards to claim 15, examiner takes Official Notice that bands used to hold rolled sheets in their rolled-up configuration are old and well-known the art (such as bands holding rolls of sheets of various types of material e.g., rolled sheets of vinyl, metal, plastic wraps, etc.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it useful to utilize a band to hold the sheet of Dobson in the rolled state for the predicable advantage of preventing unintentional unfolding of the device when not in use. The use of a band, subsequently teaches the installing and the removing of the band as inherent steps of the use of such band.
In regards to claim 16 Young teaches an abutment surface (side flat edges of 11) of the stopper (tip of 11) abuts the sheet when the rescue device is in the deployed position (once inserted into slots 12, 13 as shown in figs. 4, 5).
PNG
media_image9.png
250
415
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
176
206
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 21 Young teaches the securing element (11) is disposed substantially between the first and second through apertures (12 and 13) when the enclosure is formed (11 between 12 and 13 as shown in fig. 4 when the enclosure s formed).
Claims 22-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson, US (6062342) in view of Young, US (5915768), and further in view of Coulthard, US (2012/0305333).
In regards to claim 22 Dobson discloses:
A method for assisting in removing an individual trapped in material in a confined space (claim 6; Dobson) comprising:
unrolling a rescue device (10) having a sheet (12 described as “a sheet” in Dobson) from an undeployed position to a deployed position (as described in Col 3; LL 50-54; highlighted excerpt below; with the device when being in the tightly rolled position is considered the undeployed position and the unrolled as described in line 52 of the excerpt below, it is considered in the deployed position), wherein the rescue device (10) has a larger diameter in the deployed position than in the undeployed position (since it “unrolls” from the undeployed position);
inserting a projection edge (front edge of bolt 32) of each of a plurality of projections (bolts 32) extending outward from a first end of the sheet of the rescue device {as 32 extends out from first end (right hand side edge/end, end of section 18 of sheet 12; fig. 1; see annotated drawings below) with its head inserted in first end} (insertion steps as described in Col 3 LL 54-58; see highlighted excerpt below) through one of a plurality of first through apertures (apertures 26 on left hand side end of sheet 12 through which bolt 32 passes as shown in fig. 1) and one of a plurality of second through apertures near a second end of the sheet (left hand side vertical end/edge, end of section 16 of the sheet 12; fig. 1; see annotated drawings below);
inserting an edge of the enclosure of the rescue device into the material in the confined space (pushes the device 10 downward into the grain; Col 3 LL 60-61 and as recited in claim 6; Dobson; excerpt of claim 6 provided below);
placing the enclosure adjacent to and around the trapped individual, wherein the rescue device provides a barrier between the material and the trapped individual (second highlighted portion of the excerpt provided below of also claim 6; Dobson); and
allowing the trapped individual to be removed from the material in the confined space (third highlighted portion of the excerpt provided below of also claim 6; Dobson).
PNG
media_image1.png
208
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
185
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
761
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 22 Dobson does not disclose the projection edge of the projection extending laterally outward and passing through two apertures on the second end of the sheet, engaging a securing element of each of the projections with the sheet to partially secure the projection within the respective first and second through apertures to form an enclosure, wherein the securing elements prevent the projections from being retracted back through the respective first through aperture.
Young teaches projection edge (tip of 11; see annotated drawings of fig. 7 below) of a projection (11) extending laterally outward from a first end of the sheet (at sheet edges 9/10 as shown in fig. 4; where 11 extends laterally; in the same manner as in the current invention) of the rescue device through a first through aperture (12; fig. 7) and a second through aperture (13; fig. 7) near a second end of a sheet (4); engaging a securing element (see annotated drawings below) of each of the projections with the sheet to partially secure the projection within the respective first and second through apertures (12 and 13 as shown in fig. 4) to form an enclosure (as shown in intact configuration in figs. 2-4), wherein the securing elements prevent the projections from being retracted back through the respective first through aperture (edges of securing element as shown in annotated drawings below prevent retraction of 11 back through apertures 12 and 13).
PNG
media_image4.png
248
471
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
566
625
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute projection/fastening means of the rescue device of Dobson with the double slot design taught by Young, for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to take advantage of a secure attachment that can be easily and quickly attached/detached without the use of tools in times of an emergency where the right tool may not be readily available and precious minutes could be lost while trying to locate said tools. Consequently, the combination above teaches the securing element partially secures the projection within the first and second through apertures.
In regards to claim 22 Dobson and Young do not teach the edge being a serrated edge and a plurality of hand receiving areas.
Coulthard teaches serrated edge (arcuate sections 24; according to the definition of serration as obtained from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/serration ; provided below).
PNG
media_image6.png
140
459
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a plurality of hand receiving areas (20; described as hand hold openings) in the upper portion of the sheet (fig. 7).
PNG
media_image7.png
540
352
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the serrated edge and the hand receiving areas taught by Coulthard onto the lower and upper portions of the rescue device of Dobson respectively for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for easier insertion of the device into the material where turning the cylindrical sheet back and forth at the serrated edges would ease the insertion versus the flat uniform lower edge of Dobson, and to provide a more comfortable hold/grasp for the rescuer’s and/or the rescuee’s hands. The modification above consequently teaches partially grasping at least one of a plurality of hand receiving areas (20; Coulthard) to maneuver the rescue device substantially above the individual trapped in material in the confined space (claim 6; Dobson).
In regards to claim 23 Dobson does not explicitly disclose the rescue device is initially in a rolled configuration having a diameter between 10 and 19 inches. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the undeployed configuration (before it is unrolled into the deployed/in-use configuration) of the sheet of Dobson to have a diameter between 10 and 19 inches, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that having sheet be at 10 and 19 inches in diameter when in the rolled/undeployed state would predictably provide for the device to occupy lesser space which would in turn provide for a clear advantage for storage and transportation purposes.
In regards to claim 24 Young teaches each securing element is a clip (tip of 11; at least according to the definition of clip as obtained from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/clip ).
PNG
media_image8.png
178
386
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 25 Young teaches each securing element is a stopper (where the flat edges forming tip of 11 acts as a stopper).
In regards to claim 26, examiner takes Official Notice that bands used to hold rolled sheets in their rolled-up configuration are old and well-known the art (such as bands holding rolls of sheets of various types of material e.g., rolled sheets of vinyl, metal, plastic wraps, etc.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it useful to utilize a band to hold the sheet of Dobson in the rolled state for the predicable advantage of preventing unintentional unfolding of the device when not in use. The use of a band, subsequently teaches the installing and the removing of the band as inherent steps of the use of such band.
In regards to claim 27 Young teaches an abutment surface (side flat edges of 11) of the stopper (tip of 11) abuts the sheet when the rescue device is in the deployed position (once inserted into slots 12, 13 as shown in figs. 4, 5).
PNG
media_image9.png
250
415
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
176
206
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 29 Young teaches the securing element (11) is disposed substantially between the first and second through apertures (12 and 13) when the enclosure is formed (11 between 12 and 13 as shown in fig. 4 when the enclosure s formed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully notes that the independent claim 11 recites "inserting a serrated edge of the enclosure of the rescue device into the material in the confined space." The claim does not recite "inserting a serration." As such the Office's assertion of the definition of the "serration," the noun, is improper. Additionally, the same online dictionary the Office points to defines "serrated' as "1. having a saw-toothed edge or margin notched with toothlike projections" or "2. forming a row of small sharp projections resembling the teeth of a saw." … the bottom edge of the device of Coulthard 10 does not have a saw-toothed edge or margin notched with toothlike projections and it does not form a row of small sharp projections resembling the teeth of a saw. Additionally, the bottom edge of Coulthard does not even include a "serration" as defined by the Office. The bottom of the device does not include a series or set of teeth or notches. Instead, as shown below, the bottom edge of Coulthard's rescue tube is rounded and smooth”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that words of a claim must be given their “plain meaning” in light of the specification (See MPEP 2111.01 [R-5]), and that words are assigned their broadest reasonable interpretation. Hence, it is presented that applicant’s provided definitions of the term “serrated”, while are valid, the interpretation of the word does not need to follow every possible definition of the word, it is presented that reference Coulthard meets the definition of “serrated” provided by the examiner above i.e., a series of notches, where at least the indentations between each of the bottom sides 14s are indeed notches, hence the bottom edge of the device of Coulthard indeed have a series of notches i.e. serrated.
Applicant argues “the bolt 32 of Dobson cannot reasonably be construed as a projection edge of a projection extending laterally outward from a first end of a sheet as claimed. As an initial matter, the bolt 32 of Dobson does not extend laterally outward from an end of the sheet as the bolt 32 of Dobson is an entirely separate component from the sheet. The bolt is merely inserted (perpendicularly) through apertures within the sheet when overlapped. The separate bolt does not extend outward from the sheet, let alone extend laterally outward from a first end of the sheet … the bolt is perpendicular to (e.g., is in a radial orientation) the sheet. It is not laterally extending as claimed. Nothing extends laterally outward from either end of Dobson's sheet”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that: the above features are being covered by Young, where Young teaches projection edge (tip of 11; see annotated drawings of fig. 7 below) of a projection (11) extending laterally outward from a first end of the sheet (at sheet edges 9/10 as shown in fig. 4; where 11 extends laterally; in the same manner as in the current invention) of the rescue device through a first through aperture (12; fig. 7) and a second through aperture (13; fig. 7) near a second end of a sheet (4). In addition, arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues “The Office points to annotated Fig. 7 of Young (below) and alleges that the tip of 11 is equivalent to the projection edge of the projection with reference numbers 12 and 13 being equivalent to the recited first and second apertures. However, the operations of Dobson and Young are fundamentally different and cannot be combined to achieve the claimed enclosure formation … Dobson operates by placing a bolt perpendicularly/radially through aligned apertures on opposite ends of a sheet, and then fastening the bolt in place with a nut. In contrast, Young inserts the extended portion 11 through a first slot 12 on an opposite end and then through a second slot 13 further beyond the first slot 12. The two methods are not compatible … a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to add the extended portion 11 and slots 12, 13 to Dobson because using both connection methods would be at odds with the Office's alleged reasoning for incorporating Young-speed and efficiency. Using both a projection and a bolt would be slower and more complicated than simply using the original bolt of Dobson”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent [or application at issue] can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed. Thus a reference in a field different from that of applicant’s endeavor may be reasonably pertinent if it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his or her invention as a whole. It is presented that per the substitution detailed above, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. Examiner re-asserts that before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute projection/fastening means of the rescue device of Dobson with the double slot design taught by Young, for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to take advantage of a secure attachment that can be easily and quickly attached/detached without the use of tools in times of an emergency where the right tool may not be readily available and precious minutes could be lost while trying to locate said tools. Consequently, the combination above teaches the securing element partially secures the projection within the first and second through apertures.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/S.M.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634