DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 07/21/2025 has been received and fully considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 2 “at lease” should be corrected to “at least[[e]]” for the sake of clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“attachment mechanism” in claim 9.
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. Examiner notes that “attachment mechanism” is being interpreted as any structural coupling, latch, buckle, or equivalents thereof capable of sealing two structures together
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20130108998A1 to Kay (hereinafter “Kay”) in view of US3403981A to Lemcke et al. (hereinafter “Lemcke”) and US4193966A to Dowgul (hereinafter “Dowgul”).
Regarding claim 1, Kay discloses a rescue breather (Fig. 1 breathing apparatus 10) comprising:
at lease two cannisters containing a chemical capable of scrubbing carbon dioxide from air (Fig. 1 cannisters 36; Paragraph 0026 discloses reactionary material may exothermically react with CO2; Paragraph 0027 discloses the reactionary material may be lithium hydroxide and soda lime; Examiner notes both of these compounds are used to scrub CO2);
a cartridge assembly for retaining the chemical scrubber within each cannister of the at least two cannisters, wherein the cartridge assembly comprises a plurality of open cavities (Figs. 2 & 9 cannisters 36, reactionary material 40, steel screens 142; Paragraph 0026 discloses the cannisters contain the reactionary material; Paragraph 0028 discloses the cartridge assembly of Figs. 1 & 2 is constructed identically to Figs. 7 & 8 and for example Fig. 9 (i.e. steel screens in the cannister)); and
a manifold positioned adjacent to the at least two cannisters, wherein the manifold distributes air into the at least two cannisters (Figs. 3 & 4 opening 30, coupler 38 comprise the manifold which is adjacent to cannisters 36).
Kay does not disclose wherein the plurality of open cavities is interspersed between scrubber-filled cavities. However, Lemcke teaches an oxygen producing device which has a plurality of open cavities between scrubber-filled cavities (Fig. 1 discontinuous layers 5, grooves 7; Col. 2 lines 14-24 disclose the discontinuous layers are formed of granular chemical KO2 (for scrubbing CO2) and contain grooves (open cavities) extending the full depth of the layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cannisters of Kay to have a plurality of open cavities interspersed between scrubber-filled cavities, as taught by Lemcke, in order to provide an air distribution channel through the layers (Col. 2 lines 16-18; Col. 1 lines 35-44).
Kay does not disclose a heat exchanger disposed between the manifold and a top surface of the at least two cannisters. However, Dowgul teaches a carbon dioxide absorbent cannister which has a heat exchanger and a top surface of a cannister (Figs. 2-4 diffuser disks 78; Col. 4 lines 51-58 discloses the disk serves to be a heat sink for passing scrubbed gas due to the exothermic reaction). Examiner notes that Kay discloses the reactionary material 40 is exothermically reactive and thus there is a need to cool the products of the air being scrubbed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cannisters of Kay to have heat exchangers on a top surface, as taught by Dowgul, in order to provide a means of cooling the exothermic gas reaction (Col. 4 lines 51-58).
Regarding claim 2, Kay in view of Lemcke and Dowgul discloses the rescue breather of claim 1, and Kay further discloses further comprising: a breathing hose attached to the manifold, wherein the manifold receives air from the breathing hose (Fig. 1 conduit 22 (hose); Paragraph 0021 discloses the conduit fluidly couples to the housing component 20 which contains opening 30 and coupling 38).
Regarding claim 4, Kay in view of Lemcke and Dowgul discloses the rescue breather of claim 1, and Kay as modified by Lemcke further discloses wherein the cartridge assembly contains at least two levels of open cavities positioned adjacent to scrubber-filled cavities (Examiner notes Kay as modified by Lemcke would have multiple discontinuous layers 5 with grooves 7 as shown in Lemcke Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Kay in view of Lemcke and Dowgul discloses the rescue breather of claim 1, and Kay as modified by Dowgul further discloses wherein the heat exchanger spans a width of the manifold (Examiner notes that Kay as modified by Dowgul would have the diffuser disks across the top of both of Kay’s cannisters; Thus, the ends of the disks would span the width of the coupler 38 in a non-continuous fashion).
Regarding claim 7, Kay in view of Lemcke and Dowgul discloses the rescue breather of claim 1, but does not disclose a heat shield located adjacent to the cannister. However, Dowgul teaches a carbon dioxide absorbent cannister which has a heat shield located adjacent to a cannister (Fig. 1 housing 16, cannister 18, thermally insulating lining 62; Col. 3 lines 21-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kay to have a heat shield adjacent to the cannister, as taught by Dowgul, in order to provide thermal insulation for the exothermic reaction. Kay as modified by Dowgul discloses a heat shield adjacent to the at least two cannisters (Examiner notes Dowgul’s thermal insulation would surround both cannisters of Kay).
Regarding claim 8, Kay in view of Lemcke and Dowgul discloses the rescue breather of claim 7, and Kay as modified by Dowgul further discloses wherein the heat shield creates an air gap between an inner surface of the heat shield and an exterior surface of the at least two cannisters (Examiner notes Fig. 1 shows thermal insulating lining 62 leaves an air gap between itself and the cannister 18).
Regarding claim 9, Kay in view of Lemcke and Dowgul discloses the rescue breather of claim 7, and an attachment mechanism to seal the heat shield to the manifold (Examiner notes Kay as modified by Dowgul would have the housing 16 of Dowgul attached to the coupler 38 of Kay; Examiner notes the attachment mechanism would be some form of seal (as shown in Dowgul where housing 16 meets the rest of the apparatus)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kay in view of Lemcke and Dowgul as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN110433411A to Ke (hereinafter “Ke”).
Regarding claim 3, Kay in view of Lemcke and Dowgul discloses the rescue breather of claim 1, but Kay does not disclose a housing surrounding the at least one cannister, wherein the housing comprises two parts held in sealable engagement by a retaining clip. However, Ke teaches an oxygen self-rescuer which has a housing around a cannister which has two parts held in sealable engagement by a retaining clip (Fig. 1 upper housing 1, lower housing 2 are clipped together via buckle 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Kay to have two parts held in sealable engagement by a retaining clip, as taught by Ke, in order to provide more stable in practical use (Paragraph 0013). Examiner notes the modification results in the housing of Kay encapsulating the cannisters to shield the cannisters from the surrounding environment.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kay in view of Lemcke and Dowgul as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2018064286A1 to Moran et al. (hereinafter “Moran”).
Regarding claim 5, Kay in view of Lemcke and Dowgul discloses the rescue breather of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the heat exchanger comprises an oriented layer of metallic filaments. However, Moran teaches a rebreather apparatus wherein the heat exchanger comprises an oriented layer of metallic filaments (Fig. 12A heat sink material 105; Paragraph 0097 discloses the heat sink material may be made of metallic filaments).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kay as modified by Dowgul to have the heat exchanger be comprised of metallic filaments, as taught by Moran, in order to provide configured in such a way that air may pass through the material and interact with a relatively large surface area of the heat sink material (Paragraph 0097). Examiner notes that passing through a mesh material allows for much greater surface area interaction than a heat sink disk of solid material.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kay in view of Lemcke and Dowgul as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20140260991A1 to Null Jr. et al. (hereinafter “Null”).
Regarding claim 10, Kay in view of Lemcke and Dowgul discloses the rescue breather of claim 1, but does not disclose a top collar, wherein the top collar is adapted to fit into a recess in the manifold. However, Null teaches a gas concentrator which has a top collar that is adapted to fit into a recess in the manifold (Fig. 12 manifold 1106, retaining rings 1120a-c and O-rings 1140a-c fit into the manifold; Paragraph 0049 disclose the retaining rings, protruding ridges, and o-rings create an air-tight seal between the sieve bed vessels and the manifold assembly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Kay to further include a top collar adapted to fit into a recess of the manifold, as taught by Null, in order to provide a press-fit seal between the housing and the sieve bed vessels (Paragraph 0049). Examiner notes Kay discloses the coupler 38 and the cannisters are merely frictionally retained within the coupler. The above modification would result in a more secure seal between the cannisters and the housing.
Regarding claim 11, Kay in view of Lemcke, Dowgul and Null discloses the rescue breather of claim 10, and Kay as modified by Null further discloses wherein the top collar is branded to the at least two cannisters forming an air tight seal (Fig. 12 manifold 1106, retaining rings 1120a-c and O-rings 1140a-c fit into the manifold; Paragraph 0049 disclose the retaining rings, protruding ridges, and o-rings create an air-tight seal between the sieve bed vessels and the manifold assembly; Examiner notes the seal is the “branding” as per Applicant’s specification (Applicant specification at Paragraph 0023 discloses the top collar is “branded, or sealed” to create an air-tight seal)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20210370009-A1 to Greenwood; US-20210298370-A1 to Watters; US-20200030643-A1 to Griffiths; US-20180290757-A1 to Peake; US-20180154194-A1 to Imbruce; US-20180140874-A1 to Schuler; US-20180085548-A1 to Cox; US-20180028846-A1 to Hur; US-20170361052-A1 to Taylor; US-20170304767-A1 to Byrd; US-20170189727-A1 to Hunter; US-20170120085-A1 to Givens; US-20150182720-A1 to Taylor; US-20150007593-A1 to Johnson; US-20120312303-A1 to Chambers; US-20090071471-A1 to Cohen; US-20090065007-A1 to Wilkinson; US-20080216836-A1 to Ottestad; US-20070235030-A1 to Teetzel; US-20070163591-A1 to Ross; US-20040200478-A1 to Gordon; US-8147760-B1 to Huvard; US-7520280-B2 to Gordon; US-5896857-A to Hely; US-5692494-A to Pernetti; US-5485834-A to Joye; US-5228435-A to Smith; US-5222479-A to Brauer; US-4964404-A to Stone; US-4781184-A to Fife; and US-4750485-A to Bartos.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER RAUBENSTRAW whose telephone number is (571)272-0662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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, BRANDY LEE can be reached at 571-270-3525. 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.
/TYLER A RAUBENSTRAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRADLEY H PHILIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights