Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/23/24 is noted. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1, 9, and 12 are objected to because the preamble should read “A waterproof bag for cell phones” in order to match the preambles of the subsequent claims.
4. Claim 1 is objected to because “zippers” and “zipper” in line 5 should match. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that only one zipper is being claimed here as the disclosed bag is shown to only include one zipper at a time.
5. Claim 1 is objected to because there is an errant period in line 5 after “zippers (2)”.
6. Claims 6 and 10 are objected to because the limitation “the outer wall” in each of these claims lacks proper antecedent basis.
7. Claim 7 is objected to because it seems odd to set forth “a pull ring” “including two pull rings”. The claim should simply read “the auxiliary structure (4) is two pull rings”.
8. Claim 9 is objected to because “zippers” and “zipper” in lines 5-6 should match.
9. Claim 10 is objected to because there is an errant parenthesis after “zippers (2)”.
10. Claims 14 and 15 are objected to because the limitation “the prongs” in each of these claims lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
11. Claims 7 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the scope of the limitation “the side of the airtight zipper” is unclear. The drawings show the pull rings on a side of the bag opposite the zipper. This is also described in paragraph [0077] of the originally filed specification. The specification never mentions the pull rings being on the same side of the bag as the zipper as the claim seems to suggest. The specification does mention the pull rings being “on one side of the airtight zipper” in paragraph [0010]. Examiner assumes this is also referring to a rear side of the zipper as nothing else to the contrary has been disclosed. For the purpose of examination, rings on a rear side of the zipper will be considered to satisfy this limitation.
Regarding claim 12, the scope of the term “lightweight” is unclear. This term is never used in the specification. Paragraph [0016] does mention a “light” material but even this is vague and indefinite.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the scope of term “prongs” is unclear. The term is used in the specification (see [0018], [0019], [0095], and [0096]) and appears to refer to corner edges of the airbags (see [0095] and Figure 11). It will be interpreted as such for the purpose of examination but the record needs to be clear on what this term actually means.
Regarding claim 18, the claim currently reads that the airbag shell has three different lengths, three different widths, and three different buoyancies, all at the same time which is clearly not possible. It is also unclear what the “at 17mm” at the end of the claim means.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al. (US 2022/0079317 A1) in view of Case et al. (US D896,511 S), Brightman (US 8,438,706 B2), and Chen (CN 204615886 U).
Regarding claim 1, Cole discloses a cell phone waterproof bag (cell phone not currently being claimed in combination), including: a bag body (20); the bag body is provided with a holding cavity having an opening (at 40) along the width direction of the bag body (see Figures); there is also a zipper (40) installed at the opening along the width direction of the bag body (see Figures).
Cole fails to disclose the bag body is divided into an upper wide part and a lower narrow part, the width of the lower narrow part is smaller than the width of the upper wide part, the opening being provided at the upper wide part. Cole also fails to disclose the zipper being airtight. Finally, Cole fails to disclose a buoyancy enhancement assembly, the buoyancy enhancement assembly is a transparent membrane body, the transparent membrane body is provided on the bag body, the transparent membrane body is made of a transparent film, and there is at least one sealed transparent air compartment formed in the transparent membrane body.
Regarding the bag including an upper wide part and a lower narrow part, Case shows that the aesthetic design of a wider zipper part compared to a bag body part was already known in the art (see Figures). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the Cole pouch with a zipper part wider than a bag body part, where such aesthetic design was already known in the art, as shown by Case.
Regarding the zipper being airtight, Brightman teaches a waterproof zipper (20) that is airtight (see col. 2 line 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the waterproof zipper of Cole with the waterproof and airtight zipper of Brightman as a simple substitution of one known waterproof zipper for another.
Regarding the buoyancy enhancement assembly, Cole does disclose the idea of using air within the pouch for buoyancy (see [0043]). Chen teaches that it was also known in the art to provide a waterproof pouch like that of Cole with a buoyancy enhancement assembly, the buoyancy enhancement assembly is a transparent membrane body (3), the transparent membrane body is provided on the bag body (see Figure 2), the transparent membrane body is made of a transparent film (see “transparent film” in Abstract), and there is at least one sealed transparent air compartment (between 1 and 3, see Figure 2, filled with air 4) formed in the transparent membrane body that allows a user to operate the capacitive touch screen of a phone held in the pouch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a buoyancy enhancement assembly like that of Chen on the modified Cole pouch, the motivation being to allow a user to operate the capacitive touch screen of a phone in the pouch in the manner taught by Chen.
Regarding claim 2, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof bag for cell phones according to claim 1, Chen teaching wherein the height of each of the transparent air compartments is 4mm-20mm (see 0.5-1cm) when the number of transparent air compartments is from 1 to 4, Chen teaching one air compartment.
Regarding claim 5, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof bag for cell phones according to claim 1, the transparent air compartment has an arch-shaped cross-section along its height direction, as taught by Chen (see Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof bag for cell phones according to claim 1, Cole further disclosing an auxiliary pulling structure (45/46), the auxiliary pulling structure being provided on the outer wall of the bag body (see Figures).
Regarding claim 8, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof bag for cell phones according to claim 1, Cole further disclosing a lanyard hanging loop (46), the lanyard hanging loop being mounted on the bag body (see Figures).
Regarding claim 9, Cole as modified above would include a cell phone waterproof bag, including: a bag body, as originally taught by Cole, the bag body is divided into an upper wide part and a lower narrow part, the width of the lower narrow part is smaller than the width of the upper wide part, as taught by Case; the bag body is provided with a first holding cavity with an opening, as originally taught by Cole, the opening is provided in the upper wide part along the width direction of the bag body, as taught by Case; there are also airtight zippers, as taught by Brightman, the airtight zipper is disposed at the opening along the width direction of the bag body, as originally taught by Cole; further comprising a buoyancy-enhancing assembly, the buoyancy-enhancing assembly being an airbag, the airbag being disposed at an outer peripheral wall of the bag body, the airbag comprising an airbag shell and a buoyancy-enhancing substance, the buoyancy-enhancing substance being a gas, as taught by Chen.
Regarding claim 10, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof bag for cell phones according to claim 9, Cole further disclosing an auxiliary pulling structure (45/46), the auxiliary pulling structure being provided on the outer wall of the bag body (see Figures).
15. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al. (US 2022/0079317 A1) in view of Case et al. (US D896,511 S), Brightman (US 8,438,706 B2), and Chen (CN 204615886 U) as applied above, further in view of Bowers (US 8,186,514 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof pouch for cell phones according to claim 1, Chen teaching the height of each transparent air compartment is 3mm-13mm (see 0.5-1cm), but so far fails to include when the number of transparent air compartments is from 5 to 8.
Regarding claim 4, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof pouch for cell phones according to claim 1, Chen teaching the height of each transparent air compartment is 1mm-10mm (see 0.5-1cm) but so far fails to include wherein the number of transparent air compartments is 8 or more.
The modified Cole pouch so far includes only one air compartment, as taught by Chen. Chen only ever shows a single air compartment but discloses no criticality to such design. Bowers teaches that it was already known in the art for a pouch to include up to 72 individual transparent air compartments (34, see Figure 1) like that of Cole. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the modified Cole pouch with more than one air compartment, in this case from 5 to 8 or more, where such design was already known in the art, as shown by Bowers, and involves nothing more than a mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
16. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al. (US 2022/0079317 A1) in view of Case et al. (US D896,511 S), Brightman (US 8,438,706 B2), and Chen (CN 204615886 U) as applied above, further in view of Cole (US D799,824 S).
Regarding claim 7, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof bag for cell phones according to claim 6, Cole disclosing the auxiliary pulling structure is a pull ring (46), including two pull rings (see Figures) installed on the (rear) side of the airtight zipper, but fails to disclose the shape of the pull ring is in the shape of "D".
Cole shows elongated rings (46) not in the shape of a “D” but discloses no criticality to such shape. Cole ‘824 shows that “D” shape rings were already known to be suitable for such use. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have formed the rings of the modified Cole pouch in the shape of a “D”, where such shape was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Cole ‘824.
17. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al. (US 2022/0079317 A1) in view of Case et al. (US D896,511 S), Brightman (US 8,438,706 B2), and Chen (CN 204615886 U) as applied above, further in view of Lin (CN 217959087 U).
Regarding claim 11, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof bag for cell phones according to claim 9, but so far fails to include the airbag shell comprising an airbag welding surface, the airbag welding surface, and the bag body being fully sealed and welded.
Chen, whose air compartment has been added to Cole, is silent as to just how the air compartment is attached to the bag and thus fails to discloses a welded welding surface. Lin teaches that it was already known in the art for a buoyancy compartment (21) like that of the modified Cole bag to include a welded welding surface between the shell (212) and the bag (20) by “high frequency welding”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have constructed the modified Cole bag from known methods, including welding the air compartment to the bag along a welded welding surface, where such construction was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Lin.
18. Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al. (US 2022/0079317 A1) in view of Case et al. (US D896,511 S), Brightman (US 8,438,706 B2), and Lin (CN 217959087 U).
Regarding claim 12, Cole discloses a cell phone waterproof bag (cell phone not currently being claimed in combination), including: a bag body (20); the bag body is provided with a holding cavity having an opening (at 40) along the width direction of the bag body (see Figures); there is also a zipper (40) installed at the opening along the width direction of the bag body (see Figures).
Cole fails to disclose the bag body is divided into an upper wide part and a lower narrow part, the width of the lower narrow part is smaller than the width of the upper wide part, the opening being provided at the upper wide part. Cole also fails to disclose the zipper being airtight. Finally, Cole fails to disclose a buoyancy enhancement assembly, the buoyancy enhancement assembly being an airbag, the airbag being disposed at an outer peripheral wall of the bag body, the airbag comprising an airbag shell and a buoyancy enhancement material, the buoyancy enhancement material being a lightweight soft material.
Regarding the bag including an upper wide part and a lower narrow part, Case shows that the aesthetic design of a wider zipper part compared to a bag body part was already known in the art (see Figures). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the Cole pouch with a zipper part wider than a bag body part, where such aesthetic design was already known in the art, as shown by Case.
Regarding the zipper being airtight, Brightman teaches a waterproof zipper (20) that is airtight (see col. 2 line 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the waterproof zipper of Cole with the waterproof and airtight zipper of Brightman as a simple substitution of one known waterproof zipper for another.
Regarding the buoyancy enhancement assembly, Cole does disclose the idea of using air within the pouch for buoyancy (see [0043]). Lin teaches that it was also known in the art to provide a waterproof pouch like that of Cole with a buoyancy enhancement assembly (21), the buoyancy enhancement assembly being an airbag (inside of 212 is an airbag just prior to being filled with 211), the airbag being disposed at an outer peripheral wall of the bag body (see Figures), the airbag comprising an airbag shell (212) and a buoyancy enhancement material (211), the buoyancy enhancement material being a lightweight soft material (see “foaming cotton”) in order to help the bag float if dropped in a body of water . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a buoyancy enhancement assembly like that of Lin on an outer wall of the modified Cole pouch, the motivation being to ensure the case floats even when more items are placed into the pouch that would displace the air within the pouch originally relied upon for floatation by Cole.
Regarding claim 13, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof bag for cell phones according to claim 12, Lin teaching the airbag shell (212) comprising an airbag welding surface, the airbag welding surface, and the bag body being fully sealed and welded (see “high frequency welding”).
Regarding claim 14, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof bag for cell phones according to claim 12, Lin teaching the prongs of the airbag shell on the side backing away from the bag body are all rounded (see Figure 2 where 21 is shown to have rounded corners).
Regarding claim 15, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof bag for cell phones according to claim 12, Lin teaching the prongs of the airbag shell on the side back away from the bag body are provided with rounded corners (see Figure 2) but fails to specifically teach the radius of the rounded corners is 3mm-25mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention as effectively filed to have varied the radius of the Lin corners to any physically possible and suitable aesthetic shape, in this case including having a radius between 3 and 25mm. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. A Change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. In re Seid, 73 USPQ 431.
Regarding claim 16, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof pouch for cell phones according to claim 12, Lin teaching the height of the airbag shell is 6mm-25mm (see 0.8-1cm).
Regarding claim 17, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof bag for cell phones according to claim 12, Lin teaching the airbag shell (212) has a rectangular cross-section along the length and width direction (see Lin figures).
Regarding claim 18, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof bag for cell phones according to claim 17, but so far fails to include the airbag shell has a length of 90mm, a width of 90mm and a height of 12mm with a buoyancy of 220 grams, the airbag shell has a length of 120mm, a width of 90mm and a height of 12mm with a buoyancy of 270 grams, and the airbag shell has a length of 120mm, a width of 90mm and a height of 340 grams of buoyancy at 17mm. Lin does consider airbag size with respect to the pouch in order to optimize buoyancy but fails to get into specific sizes (see “the buoyancy assembly 21 of the size of the bag body 20 size of 65%-85”…buoyancy value… good floatability”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have varied the size of the Cole bag and also airbag as desired, and in this to within the claimed ranges of sizes, the motivation being to accommodate different sized electronic devices while maintaining adequate buoyancy. 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).
Regarding claim 19, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof bag for cell phones according to claim 12, Cole further disclosing an auxiliary pulling structure (45/46), the auxiliary pulling structure being provided on the outer wall of the bag body (see Figures).
Regarding claim 20, Cole as modified above would include the waterproof pouch for the cell phone according to claim 12, the airtight zipper and the opening are set eccentrically along the center axis of the width direction of the cell phone holding cavity bag body part in the direction of the opening of the airtight zipper. The entire Cole zipper appears centered on the body but when considering the pull of the zipper, which is at one side of the zipper, the pull is eccentrically located as is the opening which excludes the pull, and after the eccentric setting, the pulling head (84 of Cole) will not interfere with the placing or taking out of the cell phone (see Figure 2 of Cole). Cole fails to specify the size of the zipper such that the eccentrical offset has a distance from 3mm to 25mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have varied the size of the zipper and subsequent eccentricity of the zipper pull, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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). Such sizing also seems to make sense looking at Figure 2 of Cole and considering a typical cell phone size and zipper pull size.
Double Patenting
19. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
20. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
21. The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
22. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
23. Claims 1, 2 and 5-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/633,657 in view of Chen (CN 204615886 U).
Regarding claim 1, see copending claims 1, 7, and 8. The copending claims recite the presently claimed structure except for the buoyancy enhancement assembly including a transparent film. Chen teaches that it was already known for a buoyancy enhancement assembly like that of the copending claims to be transparent in order to allow a user to see and operate the capacitive touch screen of a phone held in the pouch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the buoyancy enhancement assembly of the copending claims transparent, the motivation being to allow a user to see and operate the capacitive touch screen of a phone in the pouch in the manner taught by Chen.
Regarding claim 2, the copending claims fail to recite the height of the air compartments. Chen teaches wherein the height of each of the transparent air compartments is 4mm-20mm (see 0.5-1cm) when the number of transparent air compartments is from 1 to 4, Chen teaching one air compartment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have sized the buoyancy enhancement assembly of the copending claims according to the teachings of Chen as a mere change in size.
Regarding claim 5, the copending claims fail to recite the shape of the air compartment being arched shaped in cross section. Chen shows that such shape was known (see Figures 2 and 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have shaped the buoyancy enhancement assembly of the copending claims according to the teachings of Chen as a mere change in shape.
Regarding claim 6, see copending claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, see copending claims 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 8, see copending claim 15.
Regarding claim 9, see copending claims 1, 7, and 8. The copending claims recite the presently claimed structure except for the gas. Chen teaches that it was already known for a buoyancy enhancement assembly like that of the copending claims to be filled with air to allow a user to see and operate the capacitive touch screen of a phone in the pouch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the buoyancy enhancement assembly of the copending claims filled with air, the motivation being to allow a user to see and operate the capacitive touch screen of a phone in the pouch in the manner taught by Chen.
Regarding claim 10, see copending claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
24. Claims 3 and 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/633,657 in view of Chen (CN 204615886 U) as applied above, further in view of Bowers (US 8,186,514 B2).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the copending claims fails to recite the specific sizes and numbers of the air compartments.
Chen teaches wherein the height of each of the transparent air compartments is 3mm-13mm and 1mm-10mm (see 0.5-1cm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have sized the buoyancy enhancement assembly of the copending claims according to the teachings of Chen as a mere change in size.
The modified copending pouch so far includes only one air compartment, as recited in the copending claims. Bowers teaches that it was already known in the art for a pouch to include up to 72 individual transparent air compartments (34, see Figure 1) like that of the copending claims. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the modified pouch of the copending claims with more than one air compartment, in this case from 5 to 8 or more, where such design was already known in the art, as shown by Bowers, and involves nothing more than a mere duplication of parts.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
25. Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/633,657 in view of Chen (CN 204615886 U) as applied above, further in view of Lin (CN 217959087 U).
Regarding claim 11, the copending claims recite an airbag shell as claimed but fail to recite the airbag shell comprising an airbag welding surface, the airbag welding surface, and the bag body being fully sealed and welded.
The copending claims are silent as to just how the air compartment is attached to the bag and thus fails to discloses a welded welding surface. Lin teaches that it was already known in the art for a buoyancy compartment (21) like that of the copending claims to include a welded welding surface between the shell (212) and the bag (20) by “high frequency welding”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have constructed the bag of the copending claims from known methods, including welding the air compartment to the bag along a welded welding surface, where such construction was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Lin.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
26. Claim 12-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/633,657 in view of Lin (CN 217959087 U).
Regarding claim 12, see copending claims 1, 7, and 8. The copending claims recite the presently claimed structure except for the buoyancy enhancement assembly being filled with a lightweight soft material. Lin teaches that it was already known for a buoyancy enhancement assembly like that of the copending claims to be filled with a lightweight soft material (see “foaming cotton”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have filled the buoyancy enhancement assembly of the copending claims with foamed cotton, where such material was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Lin.
Regarding claim 13, the copending claims recite an airbag shell as claimed but fail to recite the airbag shell comprising an airbag welding surface, the airbag welding surface, and the bag body being fully sealed and welded. The copending claims are silent as to just how the air compartment is attached to the bag and thus fails to discloses a welded welding surface. Lin teaches that it was already known in the art for a buoyancy compartment (21) like that of the copending claims to include a welded welding surface between the shell (212) and the bag (20) by “high frequency welding”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have constructed the bag of the copending claims from known methods, including welding the air compartment to the bag along a welded welding surface, where such construction was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Lin.
Regarding claim 14, the copending claims fail to recite the claimed shape. Lin teaching the prongs of the airbag shell on the side backing away from the bag body are all rounded (see Figure 2 where 21 is shown to have rounded corners). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have constructed the bag of the copending claims with known shapes, including rounded corners, as shown by Lin.
Regarding claim 15, the copending claims fails to specifically teach the radius of the rounded corners is 3mm-25mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention as effectively filed to have varied the radius of the corners in the copending claims to any physically possible and suitable aesthetic shape, in this case including having a radius between 3 and 25mm.
Regarding claim 16, the copending claims fail to recite the claimed height. Lin teaches the height of the airbag shell is 6mm-25mm (see 0.8-1cm).
Regarding claim 17, the copending claims fail to recite the claimed shape, Lin teaching the airbag shell (212) has a rectangular cross-section along the length and width direction (see Lin figures).
Regarding claim 18, the copending claims fail to recite the airbag shell has a length of 90mm, a width of 90mm and a height of 12mm with a buoyancy of 220 grams, the airbag shell has a length of 120mm, a width of 90mm and a height of 12mm with a buoyancy of 270 grams, and the airbag shell has a length of 120mm, a width of 90mm and a height of 340 grams of buoyancy at 17mm. Lin does consider airbag size with respect to the pouch in order to optimize buoyancy but fails to get into specific sizes (see “the buoyancy assembly 21 of the size of the bag body 20 size of 65%-85”…buoyancy value… good floatability”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have varied the size of the bag of the copending claims and also airbag as desired, and in this to within the claimed ranges of sizes, the motivation being to accommodate different sized electronic devices while maintaining adequate buoyancy.
Regarding claim 19, see copending claims 1-3.
Regarding claim 20, see copending claim 16.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 9/9/25