DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shoham WO 2020/208636.
Regarding claim 1, Shoham discloses a method for increasing the shelf life of a life-saving flotation device, comprising the steps of:
providing a life-saving flotation device comprising:
a pressurized gas container 10;
at least one flotation chamber 14; and
an actuating valve 13, 15 connecting the pressurized gas container to the at least one flotation chamber; and
selecting a gas fill for the pressurized gas container, the gas having a molecular size such that the diffusion rate of the gas fill out of the pressurized gas container is sufficiently low that the pressurized gas container maintains a predetermined charge of gas for a predetermined minimal time requirement (as the container does contain the gas for some time, and no minimal time is recited).
PNG
media_image1.png
305
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Shoham Figure 1
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Shoham discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Shoham also discloses that the gas fill selected has a molecular weight of more than 100gm/mole. Please note that Shoham teaches “the gaseous material may comprise a Tetrafluoropropene-based hydrofluoroolefin. If so, it may comprise R1234ze(E) or R1234yf or R1224yd(Z)” (page 9, paragraph 2). Each of these materials have a molecular weight of more than 100gm/mole.
Regarding claim 4, Shoham discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Shoham also discloses that the pressurized gas container 10 comprises a single polymer layer (page 11).
Regarding claim 5, Shoham discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Shoham also discloses that the gas fill selected further results in the at least one flotation chamber maintaining a volume of the gas sufficient to support the user of the device for a predetermined minimum time requirement (as the gas inflates the chamber, and no user weight or minimum time is recited).
Regarding claim 6, Shoham discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Shoham also discloses that the gas fill selected comprises at least one of R1234ze(E), R1234yf, R1224yd(Z) or R515B mixture (“the gaseous material may comprise a Tetrafluoropropene-based hydrofluoroolefin. If so, it may comprise R1234ze(E) or R1234yf or R1224yd(Z)” page 9, paragraph 2).
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kennedy US 3,925,838.
Regarding claim 1, Kennedy discloses a method for increasing the shelf life of a life-saving flotation device, comprising the steps of:
providing a life-saving flotation device comprising:
a pressurized gas container 60;
at least one flotation chamber 14; and
an actuating valve 30 connecting the pressurized gas container to the at least one flotation chamber; and
selecting a gas fill for the pressurized gas container, the gas having a molecular size such that the diffusion rate of the gas fill out of the pressurized gas container is sufficiently low that the pressurized gas container maintains a predetermined charge of gas for a predetermined minimal time requirement (as the container does contain the gas for some time, and no minimal time is recited).
PNG
media_image2.png
381
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Kennedy Figure 1
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kennedy discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kennedy also discloses that the gas fill selected has a molecular weight of more than 100gm/mole. In this case, Kennedy teaches that the fill gas is freon (dichloradifluoromethane), which has a molecular weight of 120.91gm/mole (column 2, lines 16-19).
Regarding claim 5, Kennedy discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kennedy also discloses that the gas fill selected further results in the at least one flotation chamber maintaining a volume of the gas sufficient to support the user of the device for a predetermined minimum time requirement (as the gas inflates the chamber, and no user weight or minimum time is recited).
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 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy US 3,925,838.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kennedy discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. If applicant does not agree that Kennedy teaches that the gas fill selected has a molecular weight of more than 100gm/mole, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a gas with a molecular weight of more than 60 or 100gm/mole in order to obtain the desired inflation, stability, availability and/or environmental impact, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 4, Kennedy discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kennedy does not explicitly teach that the pressurized gas container comprises a single polymer layer, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the container from a single polymer layer in order to obtain the desired weight, stability, and/or manufacturability, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 6, Kennedy discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kennedy does not explicitly teach that the gas fill selected comprises at least one of R1234ze(E), R1234yf, R1224yd(Z) or R515B mixture, however it would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute R1234ze(E), R1234yf, R1224yd(Z) or R515B mixture for the freon in order to reduce the environmental impact, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy US 3,925,838 in view of Fuehrer US 5,573,043.
Regarding claim 4, Kennedy discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kennedy does not explicitly teach that the pressurized gas container comprises a single polymer layer. Fuehrer teaches a dispenser 1 in which the pressurized gas container 2 comprises a polymer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pressurized gas container of Kennedy with polymer as taught by Fuehrer in order to make the device easier to recycle (column 1, lines 12-24).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maslenikow US 3,947,908 teaches a life-saving that uses a pressurized tank of refrigerant to inflate a flotation chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights