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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner would like to remind the Applicant of 37 C.F.R. 1.56 and MPEP 2001 in regards to their duty to disclose information material to patentability.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-5 of claim 1 is positioned as the preamble, of which technically does not hold patentable weight in light of the claim language following the term “comprising”; to which, all claim language should refrain from using narrative language involving relative/subjective terms, such as “high”, “low”, “easily”, or “attractive” unless those limitations have specifics to give light to the metes and bounds such terms would be given. The title of the invention “Portable motorsports personal evaporative cooler” would be an appropriate replacement for the currently constructed preamble, amending claim 1 as follows would obviate the objection:
“A Portable motorsports personal evaporative cooler . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation of “a high-volume” (200cfm or more) of fresh air…”, and while in light of the objection above, the Applicant uses the term “high-volume”, with the relative term “high”, however in this case the Applicant does sufficiently outline in the disclosure what the term “high-volume” is to be; that of at least 200 cfm or more; however, the claim language itself should refrain from using the descriptor of “(200cfm or more)” directly in the claim language, as the Applicant outlines this to be true in ¶0010 of the Specifications filed 11/20/2023. To obviate the objection, the Examiner would suggest the Applicant amend claim 1 accordingly: “a blower unit used to supply a high-volume . Appropriate correction is required.
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: “automatic means” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The covered corresponding structure is the water pump 46, as outlined on Page 4 of the Specifications filed 11/20/2023, in ¶0010.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 1 recites the limitation "the blower output" in Line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To obviate the rejection, the Examiner would suggest the Applicant amend the limitation to “a blower output”, as the element of the blower output has yet to be invoked.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the exhaust airflow" in Lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the blower output has now been invoked, the idea of this being an exhaust has yet to be established, as conceivably, the blower output could possibly go to a supply air purpose. To obviate the rejection, the Examiner would suggest the Applicant amend the claim to reflect “an exhaust airflow of the blower output”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " a master power switch that turns the blower and mister unit on or off " in Line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for limitations “the blower” and “mister unit” in the claim. Given the claim objection of the preamble above, any recitation of any “mister” device has yet to technically be invoked, to which, to obviate the rejection, the Examiner would suggest the Applicant amend the limitation similar to “a master power switch that turns the blower unit and a mister unit on or off”.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French (US 2018/0283710), in view of Gregoire et al (CA3035180), hereinafter referred to as Gregoire, in further view of Critchfield (US 2007/0089448).
Regarding claim 1, French (US 2018/0283710) shows a highly-portable and mountable, high air volume, low power consumption, integrated air cooler and evaporative mister that can be easily mounted and connected to the body and electrical power system of a motorcycle, all-terrain vehicle side-by-side or other open-air motorsports vehicle to provide effective personal cooling for the rider/driver and/or passengers and a highly-effective, lightweight, attractive, and well-packaged alternative to other air-conditioning systems comprising (the previous statements are interpreted as the preamble):
a. a blower unit (103, Fig. 7) used to supply a volume of fresh air to the rider/driver/passenger (Fig. 17, ¶0018, Lines 5-7);
b. an adjustable vent, duct (111, Fig. 7) or register attached to the blower output (Fig. 7, ¶0021, Lines 4-6 – the adjustable duct 111 is attached to the output of the blower, that of element 105, to direct airflow to the rider/driver/passenger) used to direct airflow to the rider/driver/passenger (¶0018, Lines 5-7);
c. an automatic means (115, Fig. 7) to deliver onboard evaporative water/fluid (¶0018 - Liquid cooling medium is water) to the path of the exhaust airflow (¶0024) to provide evaporative cooling effect (¶0018);
d. a master power switch that turns the blower on or off (¶0031 – the control panel 135 is configured to switch the blower 103 on/off);
e. a power cable (Fig. 7, ¶0021, Lines 20-21 – the power supply 109 provides electrical power to the blower unit 103 via a power cable, which can be seen in Fig. 7) for connection for power and ground to an available vehicle power port, and/or directly to the vehicle battery, and/or an internal rechargeable battery (109, ¶0028/0035 - as the Applicant claims the power cable is used for connection for power and ground to an available rechargeable internal battery, as does French show, as MPEP 2115 states material or article worked on does not limit an apparatus claim provided the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function. The prior art is capable of performing the claimed function of the power cable, which is for connection for power and a ground to an available internal rechargeable battery 109);
f. a containing bag (99, Fig. 1) that can be fully disconnected from the vehicle and moved to a different vehicle as needed (Fig. 17-23, ¶0014), being attached with attached straps (¶0020, Lines 8-10) and/or other means such as magnets embedded in the bag.
Regarding claim limitation “a removable/swappable power cable”, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the power cable removable/swappable, instead of a permanent cable, because applicant has not disclosed that having the power cable be removable/swappable provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose , or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with the power cable being removable/swappable or a permanent cable, because both situations performs the function of providing power equally well. (MPEP 2144.04, Sect. V.C.).
However, French lacks showing the blower unit used to supply a high-volume of air.
Gregoire (CA3035180), an air transfer apparatus for a vehicle, is in the same field of endeavor as French which is an air transfer apparatus for a vehicle.
Gregoire teaches a blower unit (30, Page 8, Lines 23-29) used to supply a high-volume (Page 8, Lines 23-29 – the blower unit 30 provides a high-volume of air between 150 and 250 CFM) of air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blower unit of French to incorporate the teachings of the blower unit of Gregoire, which would provide fresh air to a person in a different location of the vehicle (Page 2, Lines 5-8).
However, the combination of French & Gregoire lacks showing a mister unit with an on/off switch.
Critchfield (US 2007/0089448), a portable fluid delivery system for a vehicle, is in the same field of endeavor as French, which is a portable fluid delivery system for a vehicle.
Critchfield teaches a mister unit (10, Fig. 1) with an on/off switch (54, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of French to incorporate the teachings of the mister unit of Gregoire, which would provide a misting spray that is intended to evaporate and cool the air surrounding the user (¶0005, Lines 5-7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762