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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the filing of the application on 1-13. Since the initial filing, all claims 1-13 have been amended; no claims have been added or canceled. Thus claims 1-13 are pending in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg 13 ln 10, states the term “Bluetooth” and should be corrected to --BLUETOOTH--
Pg 28 ln 16, states the term “Bluetooth” and should be corrected to --BLUETOOTH--
The use of the term BLUETOOTH, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1
Ln 12 reads “connected with the at least one pump/fan outlet” and should be corrected to --connected to the at least one pump/fan--
Ln 14 reads “the outlet” and should be corrected to --the at least one outlet--
Ln 15 reads “the outlet” and should be corrected to --the at least one outlet--
Claim 2
Ln 2 reads "further comprise" and should read --further comprises--
Ln 4 reads "the users facial area" and should read --a user's facial area--
Claim 5
All the instances of "being in a first end" and "being in a second end" should read --being at a first end-- and --being at a second end--
Ln 15 reads "the sleeve" and should read --the wire sleeve--
Claim 8
Ln 2 reads "the sensors" and should read --the one or more sensors-
Ln 3-4 reads "above preset threshold" and should read --above a preset threshold--
Claim 9
Ln 2 reads "comprise a" and should read --comprises a--
Ln 3-4 reads "can override the sensor" and should read --is configured to override the sensor--
Claim 10
Ln 2 reads "the additional wires and wire sleeves is used" and should read --the additional wires and wires sleeves are used--.
Claim 11
Ln 3-4 reads "when the safety tether being pulled" and should read --when the safety tether is pulled--
Claim 13
Reads “HW status” and should be corrected to --hardware status--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f):
Attachment Means (claim 2 ln 3)
This phrase utilizes the generic placeholder “means” and is not being modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function of “attaching.” The specification (P. 2, ln 13-14) states “the attachment means comprise gripping connectors for being arranged around a harness/strap.” Therefore, “attachment means” is a gripping connector arranged around a harness or strap.
Attachment means is later defined within claim 3, whereby the term “attachment means” is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in claim 3.
Internal stiffening element (claim 1 ln 14)
This phrase utilizes the generic placeholder “element” and is not being modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function of “internal stiffening”. FIG 21 shows a set of coils that provide stiffening as the corresponding structure.
Fastening element (claim 5, ln 8)
This phrase utilizes the generic placeholder “element” and is not being modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function of “fastening”. The specification provides NO corresponding structure.
Communication device (claim 12 ln 3)
This phrase utilizes the generic placeholder “device” and is not being modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function of “communicating.” The specification (P. 13, ln 8-10) states “The communication device may be physically separate from the device itself, for example a smartphone running an app that communicate with the device via a short range communication channel, such as bluetooth, NFC or other.” Therefore, the corresponding structure for “communication device” is a smartphone that is capable of running an app that is able to be synced with the survival device and capable of sharing data to a remote server.
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.
Claim 5-6 and 10 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.
The claim limitation “fastening element” (claim 5, ln 8) is not detailed within the specification and lacks a corresponding structure. The specification does not indicate what specifically the fastening element is and how it works within the device.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 1-13 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 1 recites the limitation “with a pump/fan” (ln. 5, 10, and 12) making the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the Applicant is claiming a pump or a fan. Suggested correction would be for Applicant to pick a limitation “pump” or “fan”. Applicant can also choose to use the term "and/or." Use of just the slash (/) is unclear if the applicant means (1) "and," (2) "or," or (3) "and/or."
Claim 3 recites the limitation “harness/strap” ln 3, making the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the Applicant is claiming a harness or a strap. Suggested correction would be for Applicant to pick a limitation “harness” or “strap”. Applicant can also choose to use the term "and/or." Use of just the slash (/) is unclear if the applicant means (1) "and," (2) "or," or (3) "and/or."
Claim 4 recites the limitation “with a pump/fan” ln 3, making the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the Applicant is claiming a pump or a fan. Suggested correction would be for Applicant to pick a limitation “pump” or “fan”. Applicant can also choose to use the term "and/or." Use of just the slash (/) is unclear if the applicant means (1) "and," (2) "or," or (3) "and/or."
Additionally claim 4 recites the limitation “an available/selected operation mode” making the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the Applicant is claiming an available operation or a selected operation. Suggested correction would be for Applicant to say --an available or selected operation mode--
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a bracket” ln 7 and renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the Applicant is meaning to claim a separate bracket from the bracket already claimed in ln 4 of the Applicant is meaning to claim only one bracket. For examination purposes the examiner will be assuming that the bracket claimed in ln 4 is the same bracket claimed in ln 7.
Additionally claim 5 recites the limitation “fastening element” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “with a pump/fan” ln 4, making the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the Applicant is claiming a pump or a fan. Suggested correction would be for Applicant to pick a limitation “pump” or “fan”. Applicant can also choose to use the term "and/or." Use of just the slash (/) is unclear if the applicant means (1) "and," (2) "or," or (3) "and/or."
Additionally claim 9 recites the limitation “manual switch/connector” ln 3, making the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the Applicant is claiming an available operation or a selected operation. Suggested correction would be for Applicant to pick a limitation “manual switch” or “connector”. Applicant can also choose to use the term "and/or." Use of just the slash (/) is unclear if the applicant means (1) "and," (2) "or," or (3) "and/or."
Claim 10 recites the limitation “an inflating ballon/avalanche airbag” ln 3, making the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the Applicant is claiming an available operation or a selected operation. Suggested correction would be for Applicant to say --an inflating ballon or avalanche airbag--. Applicant can also choose to use the term "and/or." Use of just the slash (/) is unclear if the applicant means (1) "and," (2) "or," or (3) "and/or."
Claim 13 recites the limitation “self-test control”, is indefinite as it is unclear as to what a “self-test control” is and what the program is doing when running this part of the program. For examination purposes, this examiner will read the limitation as the device performing a check on its self -test program to ensure the program is running correctly.
Additionally claim 13 recites the limitation “and further signals for identify self-test program running and result” is indefinite as it is unclear whether the Applicant is meaning to say that the self-test is part of the ‘list’ of options or if there is an additional required element. For examination purposes, this examiner will read the limitation as the device not requiring an additional element.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berge (WO2019093906A1) and further in view of Mals (US 20150083131 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Berge discloses a survival device (breathable air quality improvement device 10, FIG 8) for feeding a steady supply of breathable air into an environment, characterized by comprising:
a housing (P. 6 ln 26-29, “The backpack 40 comprising the breathable air quality improvement device 10, may further provide a protective case around the parts of the invention to avoid malfunction due to external forces or impacts”, FIG 8), the housing comprising:
at least one inlet (inlet channels 81/82, FIG 8),
at least one pump/fan (pump 85, FIG 8),
at least one power resource (power source 5, FIG 1),
a controller (controller 6, FIG 1), and
the survival device further comprising:
at least one outlet (outlet 1, FIG 1) wherein
the at least one inlet is connected with a pump/fan inlet (P. 3, ln 7-9, “The at least one inlet 4 is connected to a pump inlet 31 of the pump 3, and the at least one outlet 1 is connected to a pump outlet 32 of the pump 3, the pump may when activated pump air from the inlet 4 to the outlet 1”), and
the at least one outlet is connected with the at least one pump/fan outlet via an air supply pipe (pipe 7, FIG 1), the air supply pipe having a rigid form factor, (P. 6, ln 29-31, “The pipe and/or the conduit 7′, 7″, 7′″ may be designed to be resistant to bending and also enforced to avoid breakage or leaks when the wearer is in an emergency situation, such as when caught by an avalanche or when buried under snow”) Berge is silent on the outlet is further comprising an internal stiffening element for providing a stable and flexible form factor of the outlet.
However, Mals teaches a support member (coil member 24, FIG 2/2A) within a respiratory device. This support member gives the tubing shape and form, allowing air to pass through uninhibited. The support members act like an internal skeleton for the tubing, granting the textile shape and form. ([0029] “delivery conduit 6A includes a wall member 22 and a coil member 24 that is wrapped around and attached to the outer surface of wall member 22 and that gives structure and support to delivery conduit 6A”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify the device of Berge to include a support member taught by Mals. This would provide the outlet with a skeleton that is stiffer/harder to break within the mouthpiece from which the air from the pump releases. Should the user be stuck in an avalanche, the additional protections provided by a hard to crush mouth piece ensure that should the user roll or fall during the accident, the lifesaving device is still able to pump air through the outlet near the users face, this allows the device to continue to be effective should the user crash, fall, or hit an object during the course of the avalanche.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Berge has the at least one outlet further comprise arranged on its outer end:
attachment means (Annotated FIG 8A) for fixedly arranging the at least one outlet to a position close to the users facial area (Berge discloses at P. 7, ln 12-13, “The pump will pump air form the inlet 4 on the backside of the person carrying the backpack 40 to the outlet 1 close to the face area”).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 8A of Berge FIG 8
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Berge has the attachment means comprise:
gripping connectors for being arranged around a harness/strap (Berge, P. 6 ln 35 and P. 7 ln 1-2, “Wearable device may comprise a fastening device (not shown) arranged on for example the jacket collar/the backpack strap or inside for example a helmet”. As seen in Berge FIG 8 and annotated FIG 8A, the buckle connector on sternum strap 92 which can be classified as a grip connector as a user grips the sides of the buckle to release and connect the buckle parts to each other).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Berge has:
an activator (Berge, manual activation unit 11, FIG 1 and annotated FIG 8A) for activation of the pump/fan at an available/selected operation mode (Berge, P. 3 ln 10-16 and 20-28, states that the device has a manual and automatic activation mode. The activation is done by a multitude of sensors within the survival device and when a threshold is met the device actives. The user can preset the survival device to activate in any type of mode beforehand, such as medium mode, low mode, power save mode).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Berge has one or more sensors (Berge, P. 4 ln 19-29, states that there can be multiple sensor 8s within the device to measure different things), wherein the sensors are sensitive to one or more of: movement caused by an avalanche, CO2 level above preset threshold, weight load/pressure, g-forces, power resource level such as battery capacity reserve, or sensor input crossing activation threshold such as: an oxygen content in a person's blood stream, heart rate or body temperature (Berge, P. 8 ln 34-35 and P. 9 ln 1-4, “The automatic activation unit 11 may be triggered of a various detected events, for example by one or more sensors/detectors 8 connected to the automatic activation unit 11, comprising but not limited to: movement caused by an avalanche, CO.sub.2 level above preset threshold, weight load/pressure, g-forces, or other sensor 8 input crossing activation threshold such as: an oxygen content in a person's blood stream, heart rate or body temperature, or other”), and
the one or more sensors is connected via a sensor input interfaces to the automatic activator of the controller, wherein the controller comprise a program for monitoring the sensor readings and for controlling the operation mode of the device accordingly (Berge, P. 15 ln 5-13, discloses how the controller 6 is connected to the multitude of sensors 8 through a monitoring program. When one of the sensors crosses a pre-determined threshold (Berge, P. 8 ln 34-35 and P. 9 ln 1-4, the device actives and turns on the pumps and breathable air systems).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Berge has the automatic activator comprise a manual switch/connector (Berge, manual switch 11’), wherein the manual switch /connector can override the sensor inputs and be used to manually activate the pump/fan at selected operation modus (Berge, P. 15 ln 15-17, “wherein automatic activation unit 11 comprise a manual switch 11′, wherein the manual switch 11′ can override the sensor inputs 8 and be used to manually activate the pump 3 at selected operation modus”).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Berge has the controller further comprises a communication device (Berge (P. 11 ln 6-7) “a system embodiment of the invention wherein the controller 6 comprises a wireless communication unit”, FIG 7), the communication device being able to transmit device status to a remote communicator (Berge, communication unit 101/104/105, FIG 7. As detailed in Berge([P. 6 ln 4-11), the device is capable of transmitting information from the user to a remote server and adjusting the air supply based off the any received data).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Berge has a comprehensive set of self-test programs (Berge FIG 6) comprising tests to check one or more of:
- battery status (Berge, P. 10 ln 20, “the control unit may initiate operation by performing a self-test and/or reading power status 203 of the battery”)
- HW status (Berge, P. 7 ln 31-25, states optional distress transmitter may be connected to the controller and its self-test programs, this transmitter is set to check for power level, filter status, and operation malfunctions; therefore, this transmitter is checking the hardware status of the device)
- self-test control
- fan status (Berge, P. 10 ln. 16-27, describes how the controller goes into self-test mode and reads the data on the power level and adjusts the fans/pumps according to the battery power currently available. The controller runs the test program every 30 seconds and adjusts the fans)
- operation status (Berge, P. 15 ln 11-12, “the controller 6 comprise a program for monitoring the sensor 8 readings and for controlling the operation mode of the device 10, 20 accordingly”)
- communication status,
and further signals for identify self-test program running and result. (Examiner’s note: as the claim reads “tests to check one or more of” it is unnecessary for each test to have a prior art reference as only one of the tests needs to be rejected for the entire claim to be unpatentable. Multiple tests were rejected using the prior art Berge as to provide a full and complete rejection on the claim from the prior art).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berge and in view of Mals, as applied to the rejection of claim 1, in further view of Paynton et al (US 2010/0184343 A1), and Robbins et al (US 2005/0029319 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Berge has
an activation lever (T shaped handle of activation unit 11, Annotated FIG 8A),
a wire (wire connecting manual switch 11’ to the activation unit 11, See FIGS 1-2, and 3B)
Berge also makes obvious the wire being connected in a first end to a fastening element comprised in the activation lever (See FIGS 1-2 and 3B), (Examiner’s note: as shown in FIG 1, the wire is connected to the manual switch 11’ (i.e., the activation lever) via some connection means; therefore, Berge encompasses or, at least, in the alternative, makes obvious having some fastening element (e.g. adhesive, screw-type connector, knot, weld, etc.)
Furthermore, the modified device of Berge has the wire being connected in a second end in the housing (See FIG 1, one end of the wire (a second end of the wire) is connected to the activation unit 11); because Berge discloses the second end of the wire connected to the activation unit 11 within the housing, it can be said that Berge makes obvious a connector (e.g. adhesive, screw-type connector, knot, weld, etc.) being incorporated into the housing for connecting the second end of the wire to the activation unit 11; wherein the connector (e.g. adhesive, screw-type connector, knot, weld, etc.) is being connected to the activation unit. Moreover, the modified device of Berge encompasses wherein when the activation lever (T shaped handle of activation unit 11) is pulled, the pulling movement is transferred to the wire and thus to the connector and the activator. (Examiner’s note: as stated in (P. 3 ln 11-12) “The pump may be activated by a controller 6 which may be comprised of a manual switch 11′ or automatic activation unit 11”; the device is operated by the manual switch 11’, and the only way to do that, based on the drawings, is to pull the wire and transfer the pulling movement to the connector and to the corresponding activation unit 11. Therefore, Berge encompasses or, at least, makes obvious the device as claimed). It is noted that Berge further teaches in FIG 3B wherein the wire and the manual switch 11’ are seen to be held on the outside of the backpack strap.
Berge is silent on (i) a wire sleeve surrounding the wire and connected to the housing and (ii) a bracket coupled to a wire conduit element with a wire sleeve space.
Concerning (i), Paynton teaches a survival device that contains a backpack with an internal pump (pressurized gas cylinder 28, FIG 2) made to release air through an outlet, ([0018-0024], FIG 1-7). The device further contains an activation lever (handle 88) connected to the pump through a wire (cord 86, [0024], FIG 5], the activation lever being displayed on the outside strap of the backpack device and the wire extending through the backpack within a wire sleeve (sheath 90, FIG 4B) in order to protect the wire from abrading the strap, [0024].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date to amend the wire of the modified device of Berge to incorporate a sleeve, using the teachings of Paynton, for the purpose of protecting the wire and the strap (Paynton [0024]). It should be understood that the prior art combination makes obvious the modified device would comprise the sleeve being connected to the housing, as the wire is modified to be surrounded by the sleeve for protection and the wire is connected to the housing.
Concerning (ii), Robbins teaches, a wearable backpack with a wire (tube 150) connected to an outside strap via a bracket (base of the first clip 186) with a wire conduit element (the clip part of the first clip 186) coupled the bracket, and a wire space (opening through the clip) through which the wire extends [0065], for anchoring the tube to the strap of the backpack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date to have the modified device of Berge to incorporate a bracket as taught by Robbins. This allows the wire and wire sleeve to sit securely upon the straps of the outer part of the backpack (Robbins [0065] and Berge (P. 3 ln 18-19)). It should be understood that the prior art makes obvious the modified device would have the wire sleeve positioned within the bracket and the wire conduit element; the wire sleeve surrounding the wire which is secured and held on in place along the strap of the backpack via the bracket and the wire conduit element. This makes obvious the wire being moveable within the sleeve and relative to the bracket in order to be able to actuate the manual switch via the pulling of the wire.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berge and Mals, as applied to the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Johnson et al. (WO 2019060572 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Berge has the device of claim 1.
The modified device of Berge does not show the housing comprising at least two battery connectors, and
a battery enclosure lid.
However, Johnson teaches a battery pack within an air purifying device. The battery pack contains multiple batteries 140 (FIG 4) and its corresponding battery connectors enclosed upon the electrical component 130 (FIG 4). The batteries are then enclosed in a battery housing 120 and sealed shut with a battery housing lid to keep the batteries in place and protected from the elements.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to design the modified device of Berge to include a battery housing container with battery connectors as taught by Johnson. The separate battery housing with removable lid and attached connectors would allow the survival device’s batteries to be easily manipulated by the user. This gives the user the ability to replace the batteries at will as well as removable should the device need to be repaired. The housing and lid while allowing easy replacement also allows the batteries them self to be protected from the elements such as water and snow during an avalanche.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berge and Mals as applied to the rejection of claim 4, and further in view of Lenz JR et al. (US 20190381346 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Berge has the device of claim 4.
The modified device of Berge does not have a safety tether being coupled to the activator to activate the survival device when the safety tether being pulled.
However, Lenz JR teaches breathing apparatus with a grasping component and tether. The breathing apparatus contains a grasping element for the user to grab to turn on the breathing apparatus, FIG 4B. Should the user be unable to grab the grasping component to turn on the device [0062] “ A user can grasp the grasping component 89G of the latch 89, pull on it and withdraw the latch 89L from the recess 72M”, there is an additional pull tether connected to the grasping component to ensure the user can active the device indirectly, [0062] “Optionally, where a pull tether 89P (such as a cable, cord, rope, web, string or the like) is joined with the grasping component, the user can pull on the cable instead”, FIG 4B.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to design the modified device of Berge to include a safety tether as taught by Lenz attached to the activator to ensure the user is able to active the device even when the activator is out of the reach of the user. This would ensure that should the user’s arms be trapped during an avalanche they are still able to reach the activator of the survival device to turn on the breathing system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the activation lever and the wire conduit element further comprises space for additional wires and wire sleeves for controlling activation of additional devices
The prior art alone or in combination with fails to disclose or make obvious a survival device comprising addition space within the wire sleeve and wire conduit element in order for more additional features to be added at a later time.
The closest prior art, Berge, discloses the device substantially claimed in claim 5 as detailed in the rejection above. However, Berge fails to disclose or make obvious the wire connecting the activation lever to the activation unit contains extra space for additional wires to be added at a later time. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to modify the device of Berge to include this space as there is no motivation, absent hindsight, to so do. Additionally, no other references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which discloses or suggests these features in combination with other limitations in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lopez et al. (FR 3064492 A1) teaches of a rescue device that is utilized within an avalanche. The backpack contains a handle that when pulled fans that are placed within the backpack type device turn on and provides the user with an air flow and a carbon dioxide filtration system. The device contains an additional airbag to be inflated when the device is activated for additional protection for the user.
Schipper (US 7984711 B2) teaches of a breathing apparatus placed within a backpack rescue backpack. The breathing apparatus contains a mouthpiece and an activated air pump system. The system is designed to allow the individual a longer period of breathable air should the user become trapped after an avalanche or accident.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE B RESTAINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8697. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIELLE B RESTAINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights