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 .
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:
“a cleaning system”. There is not a “cleaning system” shown in the drawings, at least in terms of numerals. There is also nothing defined as the “cleaning system” in the specification and the only mention is: “The cleaning system could be based on heat that reaches a high enough temperature, around 130 degrees, for approximately 4-8 minutes and then cool off the box 102 with AC and/or a vent system for a few minutes before allowing the helmet 103 to be rented again after each return.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0067]. There are cleaning elements, such as the brush(es) 125. It is therefore unclear what is meant by the “cleaning system” as claimed.
“a cleaning system mechanism” with means to “[allow] for a full surface of a helmet to be exposed to UV light, heat, steam, cleaner, and/or one or more rotating brush(es) to clean a surface fully.” There is no “cleaning system mechanism” identified in the body of the specification or the drawings. There are mechanism for cleaning, such as the brush(es) 125. There is also no source of UV light shown, or steam source. Additionally, a “cleaner” could refer to potentially anything, from a liquid to air to a surface used for rubbing. Applicant describes a “heating or cooling system 105” which appears to be a heater and/or cooler, but does not show how this heats the device other than to say that there is a vent for moving air into the box (“The heat could come from vents under the helmet holding system, holding it in place and/or from all around the helmet 103.”) [Application Publication; paragraph 0068]. Applicant describes the box as potentially having “UV light,” but does not show the UV light bulb. Additionally, the claimed function only states that this mechanism allows for these mechanisms, implying not that it produces these cleaning devices, but that it simply allows for them to be used. For these reasons, the claim interpretation is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(b) below, due to indefiniteness.
“a boiler system” of claim 17 with means “for generating and distributing steam to each box of the base station on an individual, as needed basis.” This is neither described or shown. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be anything that provides steam, such as a actual boiler or even just a nozzle. Applicant does not show anything that makes/generates steam, but generates could also simply mean produce, such as a nozzle produces steam.
The “pay system” of claim 21 “working with a phone to initiate a helmet rental and return and provide payment and grant access to the base station.” Applicant describes “a pay system 136 working with a phone 137 of the present invention to initiate a helmet rental. Similar to self-server propane dispensing system, the present invention can provide a base station 101 with a pay system 136 that allows a user to make payment, typically by a credit card, to purchase an item retained within a dispensing box or module. In typical fashion, payment is made and a box/module door opens so the item can be removed. In some cases, the return of an item may also be required or optional. The present invention incorporates a phone application to provide payment and grant access to the base station 101 by a user.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0134]. The function Applicant describes, particularly “initiate a hlemt rental and return and provide payment and grant access to the base station” and “allows a user to make a payment, typically by a credit card, to purchase an item retained within a dispensing box or module” is not described beyond what appears to be a screen 136. While one would assume that this would be a screen coupled to a computer/controller that possesses software for performing said function, Applicant does not describe said software, or show said software.
The “cooling system” and “heating system” of claim 25. Applicant does not define what the “heating system” is in the specification or show it in the Figures. Applicant does not define what the “cooling system” is and simply shows a box 105 (Fig. 7a).
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
A “UV light,” a steam system, and a vent of claims 1, 3, 4, and 5
The “cooling system” of claim 2 that is “one larger unit that has controlled vents that allows air into the boxes after a heating phase is over”
The “camera” of claim 14
The “scanner/camera” of claim 14
The “vent system” and “vents” of claim 17
The “boiler system” of claim 17 and claim 18
The “funnel shaped nozzle [that] extends from the roof/top/ceiling of a box” of claim 18
The “app or application” of claim 20
The “video camera” of claim 20
The “heating system” of claim 25
The “dispensable wipe” of claim 28
The “cap” of claim 28
The “battery” of claim 29
The “solar” panels” of claim 29
The “low energy screen on the back” of claim 29
The “battery” of claims 29 and 30, as well as the removable connection that is being claimed functionally
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 15, 17, 25, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 – “High pressure air” should be “high pressure air”
Claim 15 – “system mechanism comprises[:]”
Claim 17 – “steam holes or slits”
Claim 25 – “a plurality of modular boxes”
Claim 29 – “batter” should be “battery”
Claim 29 – “charge the [battery] or extend the swappable battery period”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 20, 21, and 25, and those claims depending therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant does not adequately define a “cooling system.” There is no written description describing the structure of this device, and the “cooling system” is merely shown as a box. It is therefore unclear what these structures are and how they provide “cooling.” Additionally, Applicant does not show “one larger unit that has controlled vents that allows air into the [plurality of boxes]” as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant does not describe the “app or application [used] to let customers know what station has available helmets for rent and time left on a helmets rental”. Applicant also does not show how all the stations “will be connected throughout a city keeping track of helmet locations, availability, and usage.
Regarding claim 21, the claimed “pay system” is not adequately described.” Applicant merely shows a screen in the Figures and does not discuss what is needed in terms of hardware and/or software when describing the “pay system.” The claim implies that there is software, but software, such as computer instructions, are neither described or shown.
Regarding claim 25, the claimed “heating system” and “cooling system” lack adequate description. There is no written description describing the structure of these devices, the “heating system” is not even shown, and the “cooling system” is merely shown as a box. It is therefore unclear what these structures are and how they provide “heating” and “cooling.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-30 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.
The claim(s) 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.
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Claims 1-30 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.
Claims throughout:
There are many instances of reintroducing structures that have already been claimed, such as “a plurality of boxes” (as in claim 1) and “a box” (as in claim 18). Once a claim term is introduced, then it should be referred to as “the.” If Applicant is meaning to, for example, claim one box of the plurality of boxes, then it should be referred to by introducing “a box” and defining that as part of the already claimed “plurality of boxes” (i.e. “a box of the plurality of boxes”).
Applicant should be consistent with claim terms. Introducing, for example, “individual boxes” should then be referred back to as “the individual boxes” instead of “the boxes.” Or, if the individual boxes are introduced as “a plurality of individual boxes,” then these should be referred back to as “the plurality of individual boxes.”
Regarding claim 1:
The claimed “cleaning system” and “cleaning system mechanism” are indefinite. When using structurally meaningless terms like “system” and “mechanism” to convey a structure, there is a level of ambiguity about what that structure is. To clarify, one uses the specification to determine what structure(s) are used to perform said function, where the specification typically identifies a structure via numeral and defines that as, in this case, the “cleaning system” and “the cleaning system mechanism.” The specification was deemed, as laid out in the Claim Interpretation above, to not adequately define these terms to make them unambiguous. In short, they are a “system” for cleaning and a “system mechanism” for cleaning, seemingly using structures capable of generating “UV light, heat, steam, cleaner, and/or rotating brush(es).” However, other than the brushes, none of the structure shown for cleaning are actually shown. Therefore, it’s unclear what structure to read into the claimed structure of a “cleaning system” and “a cleaning system mechanism” as it relies on one of ordinary skill in the art generating their own definition based on a specification that does not make clear what those structures are. For the purpose of examination, and in accordance with the Claim Interpretation section above, the Examiner will consider this to be “a cleaning system, the cleaning system comprising a cleaning system mechanism, the cleaning system mechanism comprising at least one of a UV bulb, a dryer, or one or more rotating brush(es) to clean a surface fully.”
The claimed “a base keeping a plurality of helmets in individual boxes that have a self-cleaning system built into the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system to make the helmets safe for reuse” is narrative and unclear what structure is being defined. For example, the claim really only requires a “base” and it’s not clear whether the individual boxes are meant to be part of that base, or whether each or all of the boxes have a self-cleaning system. Additionally, the language recites that it’s the overall helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system that has the self-cleaning system built in.
The claimed “allowing” is indefinite as this is merely seeming to claim that it doesn’t hinder the function. A “mechanism” is an undefined term (i.e. meaningless) in terms of structure and is, therefore, considered part of a means + function term. Therefore, this would require “a cleaning system mechanism [configured to expose a full surface of a helmet to] UV light, heat, steam, cleaner, and/or one or more rotating brush(es) to clean a surface fully.”
Regarding claim 2,
The claimed “may be” is indefinite as it’s not clear whether this is explicitly requiring the language that follows. In short, this is akin to stating “may or may not be.” For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “a cooling system [comprising] individual units.”
The claimed “individual units per box or one larger unit that has controlled vents that allows air into the boxes after a heating phase is over” is replete with errors in terms of understanding. As best understood, Applicant is attempting to claim a cooling system that can comprise many cooling systems/units, each cooling system/unit being in an individual box of the plurality of individual boxes, or one cooling system per row (which implies that the plurality of individual boxes are in rows) or one box for all of the individual boxes. Applicant should clarify the structure of the “cooling system” and, possibly, pluralize that. For example, a cooling system comprising a plurality of cooling systems, wherein each cooling system is configured to cool a respective individual box of the plurality of individual boxes, or “a cooling system configured to cool the plurality of individual boxes,” etc. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will attempt to find art pertaining to the claim as understood, meaning a cooling system that cools an individual box or boxes of the plurality of individual boxes.
Regarding claim 2, it’s unclear what the “cooling system” actually is. Applicant merely shows a box. It’s unclear if this is meant to be a fan, a compressor, a vent, a duct, etc.
Regarding claim 2, the claimed “larger” is relative and, therefore, indefinite. Applicant should remove the term “larger” from the claim.
Regarding claim 3,
The claimed “allowing” is indefinite as this is merely seeming to claim that it doesn’t hinder the function.
A “mechanism” is an undefined term (i.e. meaningless) in terms of structure and is, therefore, considered part of a means + function term. Therefore, this would require “a cleaning system mechanism [configured to expose a full surface of a helmet to] UV light, heat, steam, cleaner, and/or one or more rotating brush(es) to clean a surface fully.” This in combination with “allowing” makes it unclear if Applicant is actually claiming the structures responsible for producing these things (“UV light, heat, steam, cleaner, or one or more rotating brush(es) to clean a surface fully”).
Regarding claim 4,
The claimed “allowing” is indefinite as this is merely seeming to claim that it doesn’t hinder the function.
A “mechanism” is an undefined term (i.e. meaningless) in terms of structure and is, therefore, considered part of a means + function term. Therefore, this would require “a cleaning system mechanism [configured to expose a full surface of a helmet to] UV light, heat, steam, cleaner, and/or one or more rotating brush(es) to clean a surface fully.” This in combination with “allowing” makes it unclear if Applicant is actually claiming the structures responsible for producing these things (“UV light, heat, steam, cleaner, or one or more rotating brush(es) to clean a surface fully”).
Regarding claim 5,
The claimed “allowing” is indefinite as this is merely seeming to claim that it doesn’t hinder the function.
A “mechanism” is an undefined term (i.e. meaningless) in terms of structure and is, therefore, considered part of a means + function term. Therefore, this would require “a cleaning system mechanism [configured to expose a full surface of a helmet to] UV light, heat, steam, cleaner, and/or one or more rotating brush(es) to clean a surface fully.” This in combination with “allowing” makes it unclear if Applicant is actually claiming the structures responsible for producing these things (“UV light, heat, steam, cleaner, or one or more rotating brush(es) to clean a surface fully”).
Regarding claim 6,
Applicant appears to be adding “high pressured air” but “with the one or more rotating brush(es)” which are not exactly part of the “system of claim 2.” Rather, this is merely an option in claim 2 (via claim 1). Applicant should either exclude “with the one or more rotating brush(es)” from claim 6, or make it clear that they are considered part of the system (i.e. “further comprising the one or more rotating brush(es).”
Applicant is claiming “high pressured air.” It is unclear if Applicant means a high pressured air source.
Regarding claim 7,
It’s improper to replace something in a previous claim with something else because it calls into question the scope of the other claim then. Furthermore, the “one or more rotating brush(es) are not inherently required in claim 2, but are merely a choice. So this is essentially modifying a choice, but presented almost as requiring “high pressure air.”
Applicant is claiming “high pressured air.” It is unclear if Applicant means a high pressured air source.
Regarding claim 8,
The claimed “back and side digital media screens add an additional income stream and are also be used by cities and municipalities to send messages or further define the space where the base station is located” is narrative and does not seem to be adding structure. Rather, it appears to be just describing the intended purpose and use, both of which are not necessarily structural. It is advised to just remove this portion as it is not currently considered to add any structure to “one or more digital media screens.”
It’s unclear whether “back and side digital media screens” is meant to refer to the already claimed “one or more digital media screens,” or other, separate “digital media screens.” Applicant should use consistent terminology or make clear different terminology.
Regarding claim 9,
There needs to be “a/an/the” before “digital screens.” For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “the one or more digital media screens.”
“shows advertising on all screens” is considered to be “configured to show advertising on all screens.”
The claimed “sponsors of the system could include an ad every two cycles and logos on each helmet” is indefinite for many reasons. First, sponsors, cycles, logos, and helmets are not part of the claimed invention. Secondly, terms need to be introduced with a qualifier such as “a/an/the” to make clear whether a term is being introduced (i.e. “a/an”) or is being referring back to (i.e. “the”). Third, this seems to be just narrative and stating the purpose or intended purpose of the screens, thus not really adding any structure. Lastly, “could” implies that it also “could not,” thus making indefinite whether “include an ad every two cycles and logos on each helmet” is considered part of the claim as this could be “could [or could not] include an ad every two cycles and logos on each helmet.” Applicant is advised to remove this portion of the claim.
Regarding claim 10,
There is no antecedent basis for “the front side media screen,” meaning that “a front side media screen” has not been previously introduced and, therefore, it’s unclear what “the” front side media screen seems to be referring back to. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “the one or more digital media screens.” The same is true for “the side media screen.”
“and the helmets are viewed through the screen while the side media screen still displays advertisements” is indefinite as the helmets are not part of the claimed “system.” Rather, this appears to be stating that the helmet, If in the system, would be visible through the front side media screen while the media screen displayed advertisements. On an additional note, the claimed “still” is ambiguous as Applicant does reference displaying advertisements and, even so, this is a structural claim meant to describe the structure and not the use. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “configured to allow the helmets to be viewed through the front side media screen while the side media screen displays advertisements.”
Regarding claims 11 and 12,
The “helmet” is not considered part of the claim. The invention is to “[a] helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system” which is configured to keep and clean helmets, but the claimed system does not also comprise helmets. Therefore, claims 11 and 12 are considered non-limiting because they aren’t considered to functionally modify the structure of the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13,
The claimed “the holder” lacks antecedent basis. There is no “a holder” introduced in the claims.
The claimed “the holder is provided with one or more brushes” is indefinite as the one or more brushes are considered part of the cleaning system mechanism (see claim interpretation section above). Therefore, it’s unclear if these are the brushes that are part of the system, or additional brushes.
Regarding claim 14,
Applicant introduces several structures, but does not explicitly state that these are part of the system. For example, “wherein [a] scanner/camera in each box checks the surface of a helmet” could meant that a camera, separate from the system of claim 14, could be used to check the surface of a helmet. If Applicant intends this to be part of the claimed system, then Applicant should state something akin to “wherein the system comprises: at least one scanner.”
The claimed “the a scanner/camera” is indefinite. First, this should be “a scanner/camera” as it is seemingly being introduced. Second, the use of a “/’ makes unclear if this is a combo or an alternative. For example, a DVD/VCR is something that typically has both a DVD player and a VCR player. However, “/” could also mean “scanner or camera.” Lastly, for the purposes of structure, a scanner and a camera are considered to be the same thing. They both mechanisms that produce images.
Regarding claim 14,
Applicant introduces several structures, but does not explicitly state that these are part of the system. For example, “wherein [a] scanner/camera in each box checks the surface of a helmet” could meant that a camera, separate from the system of claim 14, could be used to check the surface of a helmet. If Applicant intends this to be part of the claimed system, then Applicant should state something akin to “wherein the system comprises: at least one scanner.”
Regarding claim 15,
Applicant claims “a dual rotating brush having a top brush and a side brush” but then mentions “the lower brush.” Applicant should use consistent language.
Applicant should avoid using verbs like “spins” and “provides cleaning.” Rather, if this is functional limitations, then it should be “is configured to spin” and “configured to provide cleaning.”
Regarding claim 16,
Applicant should avoid using verbs like “spins” and “provides cleaning.” Rather, if this is functional limitations, then it should be “is configured to spin” and “configured to provide cleaning.”
Regarding claim 17,
The claimed “a holder with steam, air, or cleaner” is indefinite. Is this stating that the holder has steam, air, or a cleaner?
The “cleaning system is based on heat that reaches a high enough temperature around 130 degrees Fahrenheit, for approximately 4-8 minutes and then cool off a box with air conditioning and/or vent system for a few minutes before allowing a helmet to be rented again after each return; and heat comes from vents under a helmet holding system, holding a helmet in place” is indefinite. This reads as more of a method rather than a functional limitation. An apparatus claim covers what a device is and not what it is. In this case, it appears that Applicant is claiming how the apparatus is intended to be used, but is also stating it in a past tense for “(i.e. is based on heat”), making it unclear whether this is meant to be functional (which would require interpretation in view of the specification to determine what structure the function imparts) or intended use (which merely states how the claimed structure is used, and not requiring additional structure). MPEP 2144: Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider it to be intended use.
Regarding claim 18,
The claimed “a bowl shaped holder with an upside down helmet; the helmet is placed upside down in the bowl shaped holder” is indefinite as to whether this is meant to claim the helmet as part of the “helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system.” It’s unclear whether this is meant as “a bowl shaped holder [used] with an upside down helmet” or “a bowl shaped holder [having] an upside down helmet.” This will determine whether or not the helmet is being claimed as part of the system.
Regarding claim 19,
The claimed “based station has a plurality of base stations replaced by individual stations” is indefinite. One cannot replace structures that are already claimed.
“able to provide” implies ambiguity about whether or not they do or do not provide.
Regarding claim 20,
The claimed “all stations” lacks antecedent basis.
The “app or application” (where “app” is just short for “application”) is not defined in the specification and, if claiming software, should be connected to some physical hardware, like a controller or computer.
The claimed “a credit card reader as well as a simple yearly key card or fob that customers can keep on [a] keychain, pocket, or wallet, that simply is swiped and a helmet box is assigned to them for fast rental service” is indefinite for relative terminology (“simple”), grammatical issues (“as well as a simply yearly key card or fob that customers”), and using language like “can” which makes the proceeding language indeterminate about whether it being required (“can” does not mean “must”).
The claimed “video camera at the top to record transactions for safety” is indefinite as to whether this is functional or intended use. In one sense, this could be Applicant simply claiming a video camera that they then use to record transactions for the purpose of safety. In another sense, this could be a specialized camera that search specifically for transactions and records them on its own memory. Lastly, “at the top” doesn’t refer to the top of what. Everything has a top, so Applicant needs to specify what this is “the top” of. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this intended use.
Regarding claim 21,
The “pay system working with a phone to initiate a helmet rental and return and provide payment and grant access to the base station; the base station combined with a pay system that allows a user to make payment, typically by a credit card, to purchase an item retained within a dispensing box or module” is indefinite as to what the “pay system” physically is. Is it just a screen? Is it a screen plus software? If so, then the software must be described and shown, typically by a flow chart. Is it capable of, by itself, performing these functions, or does it require the phone? Does the base station provide some of the software and/or hardware? Additionally, it’s unclear if “that allows a user to make payment” is meant to be “a pay system that allows a user to make a payment” or “the base station…that allows a user to make payment.”
The words “typically” and “optional” are indefinite and should be removed, as well as the phrases “in some cases,” “can be,” and “may also” as they are, by definition, indefinite.
Regarding claim 22,
The claimed “wherein rent steps” is indefinite as there is no mention of “rent steps” being actually performed. Additionally, this is a structural claim so it’s unclear why method steps are being used, particularly method steps for a “user.”
Regarding claim 23,
See rejection of claim 20 regarding the “app.”
Regarding claim 24,
The claimed “wherein return steps” is indefinite as there is no mention of “return steps” being actually performed. Additionally, this is a structural claim so it’s unclear why method steps are being used.
Regarding claim 25,
Claim 1 introduces “the base comprised of a plurality of individual boxes.” In claim 25, Applicant introduces a “base station is comprised of a plurality of modular boxes” and refers to “each box” and “the individual boxes” and “each dispensing box” and “of boxes,” making it unclear what boxes are being referred to. Applicant must use consistent and distinct language.
It is unclear what the “heating system” or the “cooling system” is. The term “system” is a non-descript term where “system” does not mean anything in of itself. The structure comes from the adjective, in this case “heating” and “cooling,” respectively, and how that structure is defined in the specification. The structure, however, is not defined in the specification other than the “cooling system” being shown as a box. While one could make guesses on what the “heating system” and “cooling system” is, a guess, in and of itself, is not considered definite (i.e. free of all ambiguity, uncertainty, and obscurity).
Applicant discusses replacement, as well as adding and removing boxes. This makes ambiguous about what is being claimed. In essence, by replacing them, one is calling into question whether they were part of the “system” in the previous claim. Applicant should also not use method steps in structural claiming.
Regarding claims 26 and 27,
The “based station” is comprised of a “custom shape” is indefinite as “custom” is really something built to design or specification. This is a statement of intent and intent cannot be measured when looking at a structure. Applicant should describe the specific shape that is “custom” or what is meant by “custom” instead of using the term within the claim(s).
The claimed “wherein a base station is shaped to fit around a scooter base station” or “around a newspaper machine” is indefinite. While, in general, this is understood that Applicant wishes to claim something that literally fits around these items. However, since these items, namely the newspaper machine and the scooter base station, are not part of the claimed “system,” then one needs to know whether something is structurally capable of meeting this function of fitting around these items. Ambiguity starts where one tries to put exact measurements or ranges of measurements on what sizes and/or shapes are not allowed. It should be noted that the claim specifically states that it is the “shape” that is being specified (“shaped to fit around…”) and not the size. Therefore, this is understood as a statement defining “shape” and not “size.” For example, if the prior art possesses a certain size, one could not argue that the claim restricts to a certain size or size range, like 3 feet to 5 feet. Alternately, however, one can also not say for certain that this excludes specific shapes, like round or hemispherical. One may reasonably conclude that any shape is capable of fitting around a scooter base station or newspaper machine if that shape is big enough. Herein lies the ambiguity and why these limitations are indefinite, because there is no way of determining, without a specific newspaper machine or a specific scooter base station, whether or not the prior art, or even a system designed and built by the Applicant, would be capable of the claimed function. Applicant should claim specific sizes/shapes that they consider capable of meeting this function. Additionally, if this is meant to be a recess or alcove, that the recess or alcove be claimed.
Regarding claim 28,
The “cap” “that easily snaps or holds in place” is indefinite for using the relative term “easily.”
Regarding claim 29,
The claimed “low energy screen” is indefinite for what is meant by the term “low” in regards to energy. This is a relative term and needs to have a specific range either stated in the specification so one can ascertain whether the energy is low, or a specific range that is well known in the art in regards to “low energy” screens.
The claimed “the swappable battery period” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 30,
The claimed “the battery is mounted or swappable creating a system where the battery is removed and replace with a charged battery weekly” is indefinite. The claim allows for the battery to be “mounted or swappable” and not “mounted and swappable.” This makes it ambiguous as to how a mounted battery that doesn’t have to be swappable is “removed and replace[d] with a charged battery weekly.”
The claimed “a system” is indefinite as there already is a system (“the helmet cleaning sanitation, and dispensing system.” This just creates ambiguity. Furthermore, a battery, by itself, would not typically be considered a “system” as it is a single component.
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(s) 1, 3-5, 11-12, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouch (US-9,957,652) in view of Boice (US-2011/0074256).
Regarding claim 1, Fouch (US-9,957,652) discloses a helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system comprising:
a base (rectangular cuboid 111)
a cleaning system [comprising] a cleaning system mechanism (steam distributors 145) allowing for a full surface of a helmet to be exposed to UV light, heat, steam, cleaner, and/or one or more rotating brush(es) to clean a surface fully (“A hat steam cleaner adapted to clean a hat with steam and dry a hat via a plurality of fans in a closed compartment is disclosed herein,”) [Fouch; col. 1, lines 57-59]. Fouch discloses the base is comprised of a plurality of individual boxes.
However, Boice (US-2011/0074256) teaches combining multiple individual boxes (locker units 152) into a singular base (locker array 100) (Figs. 1 and 2). Since Boice is pertinent to equipment storage, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the base/box of Fouch to be a plurality of individual boxes, as taught by Boice, in order to clean/store multiple garmets, such as headwear and helmets, at a time [Boice; paragraph 0001].
Regarding claim 3, Fouch discloses the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the cleaning system mechanism allowing for a full surface of a helmet to be exposed to one or more from the group comprising: UV light, heat, steam, cleaner, or one or more rotating brush(es) to clean a surface fully (“A hat steam cleaner adapted to clean a hat with steam and dry a hat via a plurality of fans in a closed compartment is disclosed herein,”) [Fouch; col. 1, lines 57-59].
Regarding claim 4, Fouch discloses the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the cleaning system mechanism allowing for a full surface of a helmet to be exposed to UV light, heat, steam, cleaner, and/or one or more rotating brush(es) to clean a surface fully (“A hat steam cleaner adapted to clean a hat with steam and dry a hat via a plurality of fans in a closed compartment is disclosed herein,”) [Fouch; col. 1, lines 57-59]..
Regarding claim 5, Fouch discloses the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the cleaning system mechanism allowing for a full surface of a helmet to be exposed to UV light and one or more from the group comprising: heat, steam, cleaner, and/or one or more rotating brush(es) to clean a surface fully (“A hat steam cleaner adapted to clean a hat with steam and dry a hat via a plurality of fans in a closed compartment is disclosed herein,”) [Fouch; col. 1, lines 57-59].
Regarding claim 11, Fouch discloses the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system of claim 1, wherein a helmet is further comprised of an AR visor and wireless speakers; helmets dispensed include AR visors and wireless speakers for providing information feedback of surroundings that may be unfamiliar to the wearer, such as navigational visual and audio prompts (The helmet is considered part of the functional limitation regarding what is to be cleaned and not considered part of the cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system. Therefore, further limitations on the helmet are not considered to impart any more limitations than a generic helmet would in regards to the cleaner, as a device capable of cleaning one would be capable of cleaning any other helmet.).
Regarding claim 12, Fouch discloses the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system of claim 1, wherein a helmet is further comprised of a QR code and magnet to hold the helmet and charger; the QR code provides scanning and tracking and transactional functions; the magnet provides additional and primary or supplemental means for securing the helmet within one module of the base station (The helmet is considered part of the functional limitation regarding what is to be cleaned and not considered part of the cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system. Therefore, further limitations on the helmet are not considered to impart any more limitations than a generic helmet would in regards to the cleaner, as a device capable of cleaning one would be capable of cleaning any other helmet.).
Regarding claim 26, Fouch discloses the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the base station is comprised of a custom (i.e. made according to person order, where making it a desired shape, like in Fouch to Fouch’s desire, is considered custom) shape wherein a base station is shaped to fit around a newspaper machine (the base station of Fouch can be placed around/near a newspaper machine).
Regarding claim 27, Fouch discloses the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the base station is comprised of a custom (i.e. made according to person order, where making it a desired shape, like in Fouch to Fouch’s desire, is considered custom) shape wherein a base station is shaped to fit around a scooter base station (the base station of Fouch can be placed around/near a scooter base station).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouch (US-9,957,652) in view of Boice (US-2011/0074256) and further in view of Kuroshima (US-2004/0101456).
Regarding claim 2, Fouch discloses the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system of claim 1, further comprising a cooling system (a plurality of fans 200) that may be individual units per box or row (Fig. 3) (“Hat steam cleaner 100 adapted to clean hat 105 with steam 106 and dry hat 105 via plurality of fans 200 in a closed compartment is disclosed herein”) [Fouch; col. 4, lines 23-25] but fails to disclose controlled vents.
However, Kuroshima (US-2004/0101456) teaches a cooling system (cooling fans 40a) that may be individual units per box or row or one larger unit that has controlled vents (40b) that allows air into the boxes (“The cooling holding bins 34 comprise small fans 40a and 40b provided in the ceiling face and bottom face thereof, positioned so as to be above and below the scope operating unit 38 and connector unit 39 as shown in FIG. 1B upon a sterilized scope 37 being stored therein as equipment to be sterilized, for example.”) [Kuroshima; paragraph 0021]. Since Kuroshima is pertinent to equipment storage and steam cleaning, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include controlled vents (40b) for removing steam from the boxes, as taught by Kuroshima, (“the small fans 40b operate so as to suck air away from area where the scope 37 is situated. Accordingly, the air flows from the ceilings of the cooling holding bins 34 toward the bottom faces thereof, so the air blowing on the scope 37 is clean air with no foreign matter”) [Kuroshima; paragraph 0021].
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouch (US-9,957,652) in view of Boice (US-2011/0074256) and further in view of Kuroshima (US-2004/0101456) and Bilias (WO2009138807A1).
Regarding claim 6, Fouch discloses the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system of claim 2, further comprising high pressured air (pressurized steam is a combination of water and air) (“A hat steam cleaner adapted to clean a hat with steam and dry a hat via a plurality of fans in a closed compartment is disclosed herein,”) [Fouch; col. 1, lines 57-59] but fails to disclose one or more rotating brush(es).
However, Bilias (WO2009138807A1) teaches one or more rotating brush(es) (“Figure 6 is a plan view of the brush used for the inner part of the helmet (inner brush). Figure 7 is a perspective view of the brush used for the external part of the helmet (external brush).”) [Bilias; page 3, lines 7-10]. Since Bilias is pertinent to headware cleaners, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fouch with brushes as taught by Bilias in order to clean the inner and outer sides of the headwear (“Then, the gate 17 is closed and locked and the rotation of the brushes 9 and 10 commences, removing the dust and small particles from the inner and outer sides of the helmet.”) [Bialias; page 5, lines 8-10].
Regarding claim 7, Fouch discloses the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system of claim 2, wherein high pressure air (pressurized steam is a combination of water and air) (“A hat steam cleaner adapted to clean a hat with steam and dry a hat via a plurality of fans in a closed compartment is disclosed herein,”) [Fouch; col. 1, lines 57-59] but fails to disclose one or more rotating brush(es).
However, Bilias (WO2009138807A1) teaches one or more rotating brush(es) (“Figure 6 is a plan view of the brush used for the inner part of the helmet (inner brush). Figure 7 is a perspective view of the brush used for the external part of the helmet (external brush).”) [Bilias; page 3, lines 7-10]. Since Bilias is pertinent to headware cleaners, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fouch with brushes as taught by Bilias in order to clean the inner and outer sides of the headwear (“Then, the gate 17 is closed and locked and the rotation of the brushes 9 and 10 commences, removing the dust and small particles from the inner and outer sides of the helmet.”) [Bialias; page 5, lines 8-10].
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouch (US-9,957,652) in view of Boice (US-2011/0074256) and further in view of Kuroshima (US-2004/0101456) and Voorhees (US-2003/0097803).
Regarding claims 8-9, Fouch discloses the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising one or more digital media screens; back and side digital media screens add an additional income stream and are also be used by cities and municipalities to send messages or further define the space where the base station is located, wherein digital screens in combination with the base station shows advertising on all screens; and sponsors of the system could include an ad every two cycles and logos on each helmet.
However, Voorhees (US-2003/0097803) teaches adding digital media screens to any surface (“The enclosure could also contain a digital display screen for displaying static or animated advertisements. Such a system would permit the display of several different advertisements by changing the display after a set period of time. For example, the screen could display a continuous series of twenty different advertisements, each advertisement being displayed for fifteen minutes at a time. Additionally, the enclosure could also contain a telecommunications link so that the electronic advertisements could be changed from a remote location negating the need for service at the location.”) [Voorhees; paragraph 0066]. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious, in view of Voorhees, to add digital media screens to any available surface of the system, including the back and sides, to add an additional income stream and send messages where advertisements are shown on all screens an ads cycle (“The enclosure could also contain a digital display screen for displaying static or animated advertisements. Such a system would permit the display of several different advertisements by changing the display after a set period of time. For example, the screen could display a continuous series of twenty different advertisements, each advertisement being displayed for fifteen minutes at a time. Additionally, the enclosure could also contain a telecommunications link so that the electronic advertisements could be changed from a remote location negating the need for service at the location.”) [Voorhees; paragraph 0066].
Claim(s) 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouch (US-9,957,652) in view of Boice (US-2011/0074256) and further in view of Bilias (WO2009138807A1).
Regarding claim 13, Fouch discloses the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system of claim 1, wherein a helmet is placed over the holder (hat mold 124) located in an individual box (cuboid 111) (Fig. 1); but fails to disclose the holder (hat mold 124) is provided with one or more brushes which contact the interior surface of the helmet in order to provide cleaning and sanitation of the interior of the helmet before its next use/dispense.
However, Bilias (WO2009138807A1) teaches one or more rotating brush(es) (“Figure 6 is a plan view of the brush used for the inner part of the helmet (inner brush). Figure 7 is a perspective view of the brush used for the external part of the helmet (external brush).”) [Bilias; page 3, lines 7-10]. Since Bilias is pertinent to headware cleaners, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fouch with brushes as taught by Bilias in order to clean the inner and outer sides of the headwear (“Then, the gate 17 is closed and locked and the rotation of the brushes 9 and 10 commences, removing the dust and small particles from the inner and outer sides of the helmet.”) [Bialias; page 5, lines 8-10].
Regarding claim 16, Fouch discloses the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the cleaning system mechanism comprises a holder with a single rotating brush; the single brush is attached to the holder and rotates in a counterclockwise direction; the single brush extends from one side of the holder up and over to an opposing side, providing a brush surface corresponding to the entire interior surface of a helmet; and when the holder and single brush spin, all interior surfaces of a helmet are contacted and receive cleaning.
However, Bilias (WO2009138807A1) teaches a holder with a single rotating brush (Fig. 6); the single brush is attached to the holder and rotates in a direction; the single brush extends from one side of the holder up and over to an opposing side, providing a brush surface corresponding to the entire interior surface of a helmet (Fig. 6); and when the holder and single brush spin, all interior surfaces of a helmet are contacted and receive cleaning (Fig. 6) (“Figure 6 is a plan view of the brush used for the inner part of the helmet (inner brush). Figure 7 is a perspective view of the brush used for the external part of the helmet (external brush).”) [Bilias; page 3, lines 7-10].
While Bilias fails to disclose whether the brush(es) rotate in a counterclockwise or clockwise direction, such rotation would merely be considered an obvious design choice rather than something that provides some advantage over the prior art, even if the prior art’s brush rotated in a clockwise direction.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouch (US-9,957,652) in view of Boice (US-2011/0074256) and further in view of Basciani (WO2012131740A1).
Regarding claim 17, Fouch discloses the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the cleaning system mechanism comprises a holder with steam, air, or cleaner; the holder is provided with a plurality of seam holes or slits; the base station is then further comprised of a boiler system for generating and distributing steam to each box of the base station on an individual, as needed basis.
However, Basciani (WO2012131740A1) teaches a holder (washing unit 2) with steam, air, or cleaner (“Said sterilization and washing means may be of different types, for example, by mixing of water and any, detergent products and/or water steam with detergents, and/or chemical substances for dry cleaning, and/or ultraviolet rays for cleaning and sterilizing.”) [Basciani; page 4, lines 18-21]; the holder (washing unit 2) is provided with a plurality of seam holes (21, 22) or slits (Fig. 6); the base station (6) is then further comprised of a boiler system for generating and distributing steam to each box of the base station on an individual, as needed basis (“Said plant 6 comprises three apparatuses 1 , arranged on a base 61 preferably metallic. Said plant 6 also comprises the delivering and air generation means for said apparatus 1. Plant 6 also provides a control panel 62 for selecting washing programs of said apparatuses 1 by means of the central control unit (not shown in the figure). Said plant 6 may also include a nozzle 63, for delivering water and/or high pressure air, also for washing the outer surface of the helmet 5.”) [Basciani; page 6, lines 12-19]. Since Basciani is pertinent to cleaners for headware, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the holder of Fouch with the holes and boiler system of Basciani in order to sterilize and disinfect the headwear when on the holder (“The present invention relates to an apparatus for sterilizing and/or washing a helmet and related plant. More specifically, the invention concerns an apparatus capable of sterilizing, clean and disinfect the internal fabrics of helmets for motorcycle or the like, without damaging them.”) [Basciana; page 4-8].
As to “the cleaning system is based on heat that reaches a high enough temperature around of 130 degrees Fahrenheit, for approximately 4-8 minutes and then cool off a box with air conditioning and/or vent system for a few minutes before allowing a helmet to be rented again after each return; and heat comes from vents under a helmet holding system, holding a helmet in place” this is considered to be intended use and does not require additional structure beyond a holder being provided with a plurality of seam holes or slits and a boiler system, as claimed. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouch (US-9,957,652) in view of Boice (US-2011/0074256) and further in view of Georgeson (US-2018/0093001).
Regarding claim 28, Fouch discloses the helmet cleaning, sanitation, and dispensing system of claim 2, but fails to disclose comprising a dispensable wipe that comes out with the helmet that the rider can use to clean inside; or a cap that is disposable that the rider places inside the helmet that easily snaps or holds in place.
However, Georgeson (US-2018/0093001) teaches a dispensable wipe (alcohol wipe) that comes out with the helmet that the rider can use to clean inside) (“Typically, visors are cleaned between uses by a human attendant wiping the visor with an alcohol wipe”) [Georgeson; paragraph 0004]. Since Georgeson teaches that it is typical to use wipes to clean things, it therefore would’ve been obvious to include a dispensable wipe, as taught by Georgeson, in order to clean either the machine and/or the item being cleaned, as taught by Georgeson, as is typical in cleaning [Georgeson; paragraph 0004]. While Georgeson does mention that wipes are not as advantageous as cleaning machines, such as Georgeson’s [Georgeson; paragraph 0004], it would be obvious to use both the cleaning machine AND the dispensable wipe to achieve a more thorough clean.
Allowable Subject Matter
If a claim was not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, this is not an indication of allowability as the claims contain many errors in regards to ambiguity, indefiniteness, and/or written description. Any conclusive statement regarding allowability is being withheld until clarity regarding the outstanding formal matters are made clear enough to adequately understand the scope of the claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO2019014027A1, WO2011108860A2, WO2009138807A1, US-9428337, US-6553687, US-6052928, US-5418996, US-2158143, US-2092907, US-20170332739, US-20170085390, US-2015/0323253, US-20140207657, FR2794347A, and FR2791585A1 are pertinent to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723