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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 7-8 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein, when the main body is implemented as an integrally formed single body, firstly the suction valve can be placed in from the inner opening of the first passage, and then the suction valve can be mounted on the inner end face of the second connecting hole; and the main body is integrally formed through injection molding using a transparent plastic material”. The recitation of “when” and “can be” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if the limitations are required or optional, since the process hasn’t even been positively recited. Examiner suggests amending the claim to read “wherein the main body is an integrally formed single body, wherein firstly, the suction valve is placed in from the inner opening of the first passage and then the suction valve is mounted on the inner end face of the second connecting hole; and the main body is integrally formed through injection molding using a transparent plastic material” to positively recite the structure formed by the process.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein, when the main body is implemented as a two-component structure, firstly the suction valve can be mounted on the inner end face of the second connecting hole, and then the two components can be coupled together”. The recitation of “when” and “can be” is renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if the limitations are required or optional, since the process hasn’t even been positively recited. Examiner suggests amending the claim to read “wherein, the main body is implemented as a two-component structure, wherein firstly the suction valve is mounted on the inner end face of the second connecting hole, and then the two components are coupled together”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Julian (WO 2018220590 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Julian discloses an emergency escape breathing device (Breathing Device; title; figure 1-22) for use in a fire ground (Statement of intended use or functional, see MPEP 2114. “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” MPEP 2111.02), comprising:
a main body (body 140; figure 1-4, 10-16. “body”; see Examiner Annotations 1 of figure 13 and 14), configured with a first passage (see figure 14, exhalation passage. “first passage”; Examiner Annotations 1) and a second passage (see figure 13, inhalation passage “second passage”; Examiner Annotations 1), wherein the first passage and the second passage are both connected to an intersection (central chamber 146; figure 13-14. “intersection”; Examiner Annotations 1), and the inside of the outer end of the first passage is configured with a first connecting hole (see figure 13-14, connecting hole at one-way exit valve 143. “first connecting hole”; Examiner Annotations 1), while the second passage is configured with a second connecting hole at a position adjacent to the intersection (see figure 13-14, connecting hole at one-way inlet valve 142. “second connecting hole”; Examiner Annotations 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
410
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotations 1
a biting piece, connected to the inner end of the first passage of the main body (mouthpiece 141; figure 13-14, also see Examiner Annotations 1), for biting by the mouth of a person (This mouthpiece 141 may be adapted to be grasped by said user's mouth 2 in one embodiment; pg. 18 ln 16-18; figure 3-4);
an extension tube, connected to the outer end of the second passage of the main body (tube 130 comprising a distal end 132 and a proximal end 131; see pg. 17 ln 17-19; figure 13-14), for extension to the outside to breathe clean air from an area without dense smoke (Fresh air 6 is drawn in from the entry region 120, which is also known as the inlet via the tube 130, through a one-way inlet valve 142 into the central chamber 146. Said fresh air 6 is then available to the user to be drawn through the mouthpiece 141; figure 13-14; pg. 18 ln 21-23);
an exhalation valve, connected to the outer end face of the first connecting hole of the main body (one-way exit valve 143; pg. 18 ln 24-26; figure 13-14 and Examiner Annotations 1), to open/close the first passage, i.e., open the first passage when the user exhales, and close the first passage when the user inhales (pg. 18 ln 24-26; figure 13-14 and Examiner Annotations 1); and
a suction valve, connected to the inner end face of the second connecting hole of the main body (one way inlet valve 142; pg. 18 ln 21-26; figure 13-14 and Examiner Annotations 1), to open/close the second passage, i.e., open the second passage when the user inhales, and close the second passage when the user exhales (pg. 18 ln 21-26; figure 13-14 and Examiner Annotations 1).
Regarding claim 2, Julian discloses the emergency escape breathing device for use in a fire ground defined in Claim 1, wherein said extension tube can be connected with a filtering tank (The distal end 132 of the tube 130 attaches to the entry body 122 of the entry region 120 located below the bottom seam 14 of the jacket 10; pg. 19-29-30; figure 13-14. Examiner notes tube 130 is capable of being connected to a filtering tank).
Regarding claim 3, Julian discloses the emergency escape breathing device for use in a fire ground defined in Claim 1, wherein said main body is attached with a head strap (The tube 130, body 140 and entry region 120 are retained by one or more selected from clips, straps, sheathes, and hook and loop, to the inner layer 18; pg. 21 ln 26-27. Examiner notes a strap may be used to attach to any part of a user’s body).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julian (WO 2018220590 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson (US 20060272637 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Julian discloses the emergency escape breathing device for use in a fire ground defined in Claim 1, but is silent as to wherein a flexible tube is configured between the extension tube and the outer end of the second passage of the main body.
However, Johnson teaches a breathing device including a snorkel (1; figure 1A-1B) comprising a flexible tube ([0067] ribbed flexible connecting tube 19. The outer ribs 21 provide radial support for the tube, while still allowing it to be flexible and bend. This bending provides improved comfort while the snorkel 1 is being worn, particularly if other diving gear is also concurrently being used; figure 1A-1B and 4A-4B) configured between an extension tube ([0060] main tube 13; figure 1A-1B) and the outer end of a second passage of a main body ([0068] the upper grooves 58 of the connecting tube 19 that mate with corresponding ribs 57 on the main tube 13 (shown in FIG. 3A) and the lower grooves 59 of the connecting tube 19 that mate with ribs 60 on the junction 22 (shown in FIG. 5A)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Julian to implement a ribbed flexible connecting tube connected in between the tube and the second passage of the main body in order to provide a bendable section that improves the comfort of the device during use, as taught by Johnson [0067].
Regarding claim 5, modified Julian teaches the emergency escape breathing device for use in a fire ground defined in Claim 4, but is silent as to wherein said first connecting hole and the second connecting hole are formed by at least three ribs and a bore hole formed in the center of the passage.
Julian teaches The one-way inlet valve 142 and exit valve 143 are umbrella valves in the preferred embodiment; pg. 19 ln 17-18; figure 13-14.
Additionally, Johnson teaches a connecting hole ([0061] rigid support disk 36; figure 5A-5E) for connecting a umbrella valve ([0061] A combined sealing assembly 6 includes a combined sealing member 30, a rigid support disk 36, and a convoluted membrane 40, which serves to flexibly mount the active components of the exhalation valve which is a functional component of the combined sealing assembly 6 acting against a sealing ring 47 of an exhalation tube lower mount 44’ figure 5B-5C and 5E) wherein the connecting hole is formed by at least three ribs (four ribs surrounding central hole 37; figure 5B and 5D) and a bore hole formed in the center of the passage ([0075] The central hole 37 in the rigid support disk 36 supports the combined sealing member 30 at said member's attachment groove 34; figure 5B-5E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second connecting holes of Julian to implement the structure of the rigid support disk in order to support the structure of the valves by holding the valve in the central hole, as taught by Johnson [0075].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julian (WO 2018220590 A1) and Johnson (US 20060272637 A1) as applied to claim 5 above respectively, and further in view of Kawashima et al. (US 5937850 A).
Regarding claim 6, modified Julian teaches the emergency escape breathing device for use in a fire ground defined in Claim 5, but is silent as to wherein said exhalation valve and suction valve are both formed as a diaphragm with its center configured with a conic inserting rod extending outward, and an outstanding flange is configured on the inserting rod at a position close to the diaphragm.
Julian teaches The one-way inlet valve 142 and exit valve 143 are umbrella valves in the preferred embodiment; pg. 19 ln 17-18; figure 13-14.
Additionally, Kawashima teaches an umbrella valve (non-return valve 7; figure 2-3) formed as a diaphragm (oval-sheet-like valve seat 26; col 3 ln 19-24; figure 3) with its center configured with a conic inserting rod extending outward (valve rod 19; col 3 ln 19-24; figure 3), and an outstanding flange is configured on the inserting rod at a position close to the diaphragm (base of valve rod 19; figure 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the one-way inlet valve and exit valve of Johnson to comprise an oval sheet-like valve seat and a valve rod rising from the center of the valve seat in order to ensure the valve seat is in tight contact with the connecting hole, as taught by Kawashima col 3 ln 19-24.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julian (WO 2018220590 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, respectively, and further in view of Flynn, SR. (US 20090260628 A1), hereinafter Flynn.
Regarding claim 7, Julian discloses the emergency escape breathing device for use in a fire ground defined in Claim 1, wherein, when the main body is implemented as an integrally formed single body (In one embodiment, the body is integrally formed; pg. 7 line 25), firstly the suction valve can be placed in from the inner opening of the first passage, and then the suction valve can be mounted on the inner end face of the second connecting hole (Examiner notes that the one-way inlet valve 142 can be placed in from the inner opening of the first passage near the mouthpiece 141 and then mounted on the inner end face of the second connecting hole as seen in figure 13-14 and Examiner Annotations 1); and the main body is integrally formed through injection molding using a plastic material (The body 140 and entry body 122 are both to be plastic injection moulded, blow moulded, cast, extruded, rotationally moulded or 3D printed; pg. 20 ln 7-8), but is silent as to wherein the plastic material is transparent.
However, Flynn teaches a therapeutic face mask (210; figure 2) comprising a main body ([0054] connector 214; figure 2-3) wherein the main body is formed using a transparent plastic material ([0106] the connectors, such as connectors 214 and 915, and the necks, such as necks 530, 688, 1130, 1288 of the oxygen reservoir bags 536, 1136 and nebulizers 680, 1280, are made from rigid PVC. Preferably, the PVC material is a transparent or translucent PVC material; figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the main body of Julian to be formed using a transparent PVC material, as doing so would be an obvious design choice as taught by Flynn [0106].
With regard to Claim 7 which is/are a product by process claim(s), the product disclosed by the prior art, as modified, is identical to the claimed product, even though (it is made by a somewhat different process/the prior art is silent on the method of making). There is no evidence to show that the claimed process imparts any patentable distinction between the claimed product and that of the prior art. When the reference teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
Thus, the product itself contains all of the structural, physical and chemical components that would have yield the same chemical and physical properties such as intend use for mounting the suction valve. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art' s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julian (WO 2018220590 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, respectively, and further in view of Fujima (US 5280785 A).
Regarding claim 8, Julian discloses the emergency escape breathing device for use in a fire ground defined in Claim 1, wherein, but is silent as to when the main body is implemented as a two-component structure, firstly the suction valve can be mounted on the inner end face of the second connecting hole, and then the two components can be coupled together.
Julian teaches In one embodiment, the body is integrally formed; pg. 7 line 25. Examiner notes that this suggests that in another embodiment the body may not be integrally formed.
However, Fujima teaches a snorkel device (1; figure 1-7) wherein while the first pipe portion 3A and the second pipe portion 3B may be molded in a form of single-piece component, these two portions may be molded as separate pieces, followed by bonding together, if their constructions are too complicated to be molded as a single-piece component; col 4 ln 15-20; figure 2-7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the body of Julian to implement the teachings of Fujima by molding the body as two separate pieces, followed by boding together, in order to simplify the construction (see Fujima col 4 ln 15-20).
As modified, Julian teaches firstly the suction valve can be mounted on the inner end face of the second connecting hole, and then the two components can be coupled together (Examiner notes that the one-way inlet valve 142 can be mounted on the inner end face of the second connecting hole, as seen in figure 13-14 and Examiner Annotations 1, and then the two components of the body can be bonded together as per the modification above).
With regard to Claim 8 which is/are a product by process claim(s), the product disclosed by the prior art, as modified, is identical to the claimed product, even though (it is made by a somewhat different process/the prior art is silent on the method of making). There is no evidence to show that the claimed process imparts any patentable distinction between the claimed product and that of the prior art. When the reference teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
Thus, the product itself contains all of the structural, physical and chemical components that would have yield the same chemical and physical properties such as intend use for mounting the suction valve. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art' s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julian (WO 2018220590 A1) as applied to claim 2 and 3 above, respectively, and further in view of Johnson (US 20060272637 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Julian discloses the emergency escape breathing device for use in a fire ground defined in Claim 2, but is silent as to wherein a flexible tube is configured between the extension tube and the outer end of the second passage of the main body.
However, Johnson teaches a breathing device including a snorkel (1; figure 1A-1B) comprising a flexible tube ([0067] ribbed flexible connecting tube 19. The outer ribs 21 provide radial support for the tube, while still allowing it to be flexible and bend. This bending provides improved comfort while the snorkel 1 is being worn, particularly if other diving gear is also concurrently being used; figure 1A-1B and 4A-4B) configured between an extension tube ([0060] main tube 13; figure 1A-1B) and the outer end of a second passage of a main body ([0068] the upper grooves 58 of the connecting tube 19 that mate with corresponding ribs 57 on the main tube 13 (shown in FIG. 3A) and the lower grooves 59 of the connecting tube 19 that mate with ribs 60 on the junction 22 (shown in FIG. 5A)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Julian to implement a ribbed flexible connecting tube connected in between the tube and the second passage of the main body in order to provide a bendable section that improves the comfort of the device during use, as taught by Johnson [0067].
Regarding claim 10, Julian discloses the emergency escape breathing device for use in a fire ground defined in Claim 3, but is silent as to wherein a flexible tube is configured between the extension tube and the outer end of the second passage of the main body.
However, Johnson teaches a breathing device including a snorkel (1; figure 1A-1B) comprising a flexible tube ([0067] ribbed flexible connecting tube 19. The outer ribs 21 provide radial support for the tube, while still allowing it to be flexible and bend. This bending provides improved comfort while the snorkel 1 is being worn, particularly if other diving gear is also concurrently being used; figure 1A-1B and 4A-4B) configured between an extension tube ([0060] main tube 13; figure 1A-1B) and the outer end of a second passage of a main body ([0068] the upper grooves 58 of the connecting tube 19 that mate with corresponding ribs 57 on the main tube 13 (shown in FIG. 3A) and the lower grooves 59 of the connecting tube 19 that mate with ribs 60 on the junction 22 (shown in FIG. 5A)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Julian to implement a ribbed flexible connecting tube connected in between the tube and the second passage of the main body in order to provide a bendable section that improves the comfort of the device during use, as taught by Johnson [0067].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mautin I Ashimiu whose telephone number is (571)272-0760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. ET.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/M.I.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VALERIE L WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights