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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan et al. US 8,919,853 in view of Yin US 9,908,227 and Krankowsky 2013/0105603.
Regarding claim 1, Krishnan et al. disclose:
An assembly comprising: a vehicle structure (24; tailgate; Figs. 1 and 2); a handle (48; Figs. 1 and 2) that is associated with the vehicle structure (24; tailgate; Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the handle (48; Figs. 1 and 2) is selectively moveable between a stowed position (Fig. 1) and a deployed position (Fig. 2), wherein at least a portion of the handle (48; Figs. 1 and 2) comprises a hollow cavity (as can be seen by the cross section cut out in Fig. 7).
However, Krishnan et al. do not disclose a tool stored within the hollow cavity and such tool being selectively removeable from the handle, an end cap or that the specific tool is an air wand.
Notwithstanding, Yin discloses a handle (12; Figs. 1 and 2) with a hollow cavity (26; Fig. 2) within which a tool (10; Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 8-9) is stored and such tool (10; Fig. 2) is selectively removeable from the handle in that the tool 10 is stored hidden within the handle in Fig. 1 and is removed from the handle in Fig. 2. Yin also discloses an end cap (28; Fig. 2) attached to a distal end of the handle (12; Figs. 1 and 2; such end shown in Fig. 2) to selectively close the hollow cavity (26; Fig. 2). Also, the end cap includes “lock” buttons (60, 62; Fig. 5) which are moveable between an engaged or “lock position” and a disengaged or “unlock position” (such positions described in col. 5, lines 16-19), where the lock is resiliently biased to the engaged or “lock position” by springs (74; Fig. 5) as described in col. 5, lines 19-20.
In addition, Krankowsky discloses an air wand tool (10; Fig. 2; abstract, line 1) which is elongated with a handle (20; the grasped portion of the wand in Fig. 1; note that while element 20 is described in the specification as being a ball valve it is also considered to be a handle because the definition of a handle at merriam-webster.com is “a part that is designed especially to be grasped by the hand” and such grasping by the left hand of the operator is shown in Figure 1) and the working end through which air flow (16; Fig. 1) is expelled are aligned in a longitudinal direction. The air wand of Krankowsky has utility in a vehicle environment as shown in Figure 1.
Therefore, it 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 to utilize the hollow cavity of the handle of Krishnan et al. to store a tool therein, where the hollow cavity is selectively closed by an end cap which includes a lock as taught by Yin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an additional function to the handle.
Furthermore, it 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 to select an air wand as taught Krankowsky as the specific tool being stored in the hollow cavity of Krishnan et al., in view of Yin, with a reasonable expectation of success because the air wand tool of Krankowsky is of a configuration which is suitable for storage in the hollow cavity of Krishnan et al., in view of Yin, and such air wand has utility in a vehicle environment.
Regarding claim 2, Krishnan et al., in view of Yin and Krankowsky, disclose:
The assembly of claim 1, as explained above, including an end cap (28; Fig. 2 taught by Yin) attached to a distal end of the handle (12; Figs. 1 and 2; such distal end shown in Fig. 2 of Yin) to close the hollow cavity when the air wand (taught by Krakowski) is in a stored position.
Regarding claim 3, Krishnan et al., in view of Yin and Krankowsky, disclose:
The assembly of claim 2, as explained above, wherein the end cap (28; Fig. 2 taught by Yin) includes a lock (buttons 60, 62; in Fig. 5 of Yin) that is moveable between an engaged or “lock position” and a disengaged or “unlock position” (such positions described in col. 5, lines 16-19 of Yin).
Regarding claim 4, Krishnan et al., in view of Yin and Krankowsky, disclose:
The assembly of claim 3, as explained above, wherein the lock (buttons 60, 62; in Fig. 5 of Yin) is resiliently biased to the lock position by springs (74; Fig. 5 of Yin) as described in col. 5, lines 19-20 of Yin.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan et al. US 8,919,853 in view of Yin US 9,908,227 and Krankowsky 2013/0105603, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Crofford US 6,308,899.
Regarding claim 5, Krishnan et al., in view of Yin and Krankowsky, disclose an air wand which includes a handle portion (20; Fig. 2 of Krankowsky) aligned with a longitudinal axis of the air wand tube (27; Fig. 2 of Krankowsky).
However, Krishnan et al., in view of Yin and Krankowsky, do not disclose that the air wand includes a nozzle which is aligned with the handle and extends along a common axis when in a stored position.
Notwithstanding, Crofford discloses an air wand (19; Figs. 11-12) which includes a nozzle assembly (43; 44; Figs. 10-12) which includes a flexible, articulated portion (43; Figs. 10-12) which permits adjustment of the direction of nozzle (44; Fig. 10; col. 7, lines 44-46), where such direction adjustment is shown in Figure 11, and where the nozzle assembly (43, 44; Figs 10-12) can be aligned with a longitudinal axis of the air wand tube (42; Figs. 10-12), where such alignment is shown in Figs 10 and 12.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the air wand of Krishnan et al., in view of Yin and Krakowski, to include a nozzle assembly including a nozzle in alignment with a longitudinal axis of the wand tube so that the nozzle is also aligned with the handle along a common axis extending through the air wand tube when in the stored position as taught by Crofford with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a nozzle provides greater air pressure and the provision of a flexible, articulated nozzle assembly portion provides for adjustment of the direction min which the air is blown from the air wand.
Regarding claim 6, the wand handle is considered to be a lever (21; Fig. 2 of Krankowsky; in that it is “a part that is designed especially to be grasped by the hand” as the term “handle” is defined at merriam-webster.com) which is selectively movable between a stored position as shown in Fig. 2 that is coaxial with the air wand tube and nozzle assembly to a deployed position when ball valve (20; Fig. 2) is closed so that where the wand handle (lever 21; Fig. 2) is angled with respect to the air wand tube and thus with respect to the nozzle so that the nozzle and wand handle are non-coaxial.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan et al. US 8,919,853 in view of Yin US 9,908,227 and Krankowsky 2013/0105603, as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Crofford US 6,308,899.
Regarding claim 8, Krishnan et al., in view of Yin, Krankowsky and Crofford, disclose:
The assembly of claim 5, as explained above, wherein the wand handle includes a compressor connector (24; Fig. 2; see para. [0042], lines 7-9 of Krankowsky; regarding the compressor) that comprises an air input (where pressurized air enters the air wand from the compressor), and wherein the nozzle comprises an air output (as is the purpose of a nozzle).
However, Krishnan et al., in view of Yin, Krankowsky and Crofford, do not disclose that the air wand ball valve (20; Fig. 2 of Krankowsky) is selectively actuated by a trigger to control air flow between the air input and the air output.
Notwithstanding, Crofford further discloses a trigger (39; Fig. 11).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the air wand of Krishnan et al., in view of Yin, Krankowsky and Crofford, with a trigger to control air flow between the air input and the air output as taught by Crofford with a reasonable expectation of success because the trigger is easier to operate that a ball valve with a pivoting lever.
Claims 11, 12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan et al. US 8,919,853 in view of Yin US 9,908,227 and Krankowsky 2013/0105603.
Regarding claim 11, Krishnan et al. disclose:
An assembly comprising: a tailgate (24; tailgate; Figs. 1 and 2); a handle (48; Figs. 1 and 2) that is associated with the tailgate (24; tailgate; Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the handle (48; Figs. 1 and 2) is selectively moveable between a stowed position (Fig. 1) and a deployed position (Fig. 2), and wherein the handle includes a tubular portion (as can be seen by the cross section cut out in Fig. 7) that naturally provides a hollow cavity (Fig. 7).
However, Krishnan et al. do not disclose a tool stored within the hollow cavity and such tool being selectively removeable from the handle, an end cap attached to a distal end of the handle to close the hollow cavity when the tool is in a stored position or that the specific tool is an air wand.
Notwithstanding, Yin discloses a handle (12; Figs. 1 and 2) with a hollow cavity (26; Fig. 2) within which a tool (10; Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 8-9) is stored and such tool (10; Fig. 2) is selectively removeable from the handle in that the tool 10 is stored within the handle in Fig. 1 and is removed from the handle in Fig. 2. Yin also discloses an end cap (28; Fig. 2) attached to a distal end of the handle (12; Figs. 1 and 2; such end shown in Fig. 2) to close the hollow cavity (26; Fig. 2).
In addition, Krankowsky discloses an air wand tool (10; Fig. 2) which is elongated with a handle (the grasped end in Fig. 1) and the working end through air flow (16; Fig. 1) is expelled are aligned in a longitudinal direction. The air wand of Krankowsky has utility in a vehicle environment as shown in Figure 1.
Therefore, it 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 to utilize the hollow cavity of the handle of Krishnan et al. to store a tool therein, where the hollow cavity is selectively closed by an end cap as taught by Yin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an additional function to the handle.
Furthermore, it 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 to select an air wand as taught Krankowsky as the specific tool being stored in the hollow cavity of Krishnan et al., in view of Yin, with a reasonable expectation of success because the air wand tool of Krankowsky is of a configuration which is suitable for storage in the hollow cavity of Krishnan et al., in view of Yin, and such air wand has utility in a vehicle environment.
Regarding claim 12, Krishnan et al., in view of Yin and Krankowsky, disclose:
The assembly of claim 11, as explained above, wherein the end cap (28; Fig. 2 taught by Yin) includes a lock (buttons 60, 62; in Fig. 5 of Yin) that is moveable between an engaged or “lock position” and a disengaged or “unlock position” (such positions described in col. 5, lines 16-19 of Yin) and wherein the lock (buttons 60, 62; in Fig. 5 of Yin) is resiliently biased to the lock position by springs (74; Fig. 5 of Yin) as described in col. 5, lines 19-20 of Yin.
Regarding claim 17, the use of the assembly of Krishnan et al., in view of Yin and Krankowsky, involves a method comprising: selectively moving a handle (48; Figs. 1 and 2 of Krishnan et al.) associated with a vehicle structure (24; tailgate; Figs. 1 and 2 of Krishnan et al.) from a stowed position (Fig. 1 of Krishnan et al.) to a deployed position (Fig. 2 of Krishnan et al.), wherein the handle includes a tubular portion that provides a hollow cavity; storing an air wand (taught by Krankowsky) within the hollow cavity; and selectively removing the air wand from the handle.
Regarding claim 18, the use of the assembly of Krishnan et al., in view of Yin and Krankowsky, involves the method of claim 17, as explained above, including closing a distal end of the tubular portion with an end cap (taught by Yin) when the air wand is in a stored position.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan et al. US 8,919,853 in view of Yin US 9,908,227 and Krankowsky 2013/0105603.
Regarding claim 13, Krishnan et al., in view of Yin and Krankowsky, disclose an air wand which includes a handle portion (20; Fig. 2 of Krankowsky) aligned with a longitudinal axis of the air wand tube (27; Fig. 2 of Krankowsky).
However, Krishnan et al., in view of Yin and Krankowsky, do not disclose that the air wand includes a nozzle which is aligned with the handle and extends along a common axis when in a stored position.
Notwithstanding, Crofford discloses an air wand (19; Figs. 11-12) which includes a nozzle assembly (43; 44) which includes a flexible, articulated portion (43; Figs. 10-12) which permits adjustment of the direction of nozzle (44; Fig. 10; col. 7, lines 44-46), where such direction adjustment is shown in Figure 11, and where the nozzle assembly (43, 44; Figs 10-12) can be aligned with a longitudinal axis of the air wand tube (42; Figs. 10-12), where such alignment is shown in Figs 10 and 12.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the air wand of Krishnan et al., in view of Yin and Krankowsky, to include a nozzle assembly including a nozzle in alignment with a longitudinal axis of the wand tube so that the nozzle is also aligned with the handle along a common axis extending through the air wand tube when in the stored position as taught by Crofford with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a nozzle provides greater air pressure and the provision of a flexible, articulated nozzle assembly portion provides for adjustment of the direction the air is blown from the air wand.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan et al. US 8,919,853 in view of Yin US 9,908,227 and Krankowsky 2013/0105603, as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Crofford US 6,308,899.
Regarding claim 15, Krishnan et al., in view of Yin, Krankowsky and Crofford, disclose:
The assembly of claim 5, as explained above, wherein the wand handle includes a compressor connector (24; Fig. 2; see para. [0042], lines 7-9 of Krankowsky; regarding the compressor) that comprises an air input (where pressurized air enters the air wand from the compressor), and wherein the nozzle comprises an air output (as is the purpose of a nozzle).
However, Krishnan et al., in view of Yin, Krankowsky and Crofford, do not disclose that the air wand ball valve (20; Fig. 2 of Krankowsky) is selectively actuated by a trigger to control air flow between the air input and the air output.
Notwithstanding, Crofford further discloses a trigger (39; Fig. 11).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the air wand of Krishnan et al., in view of Yin, Krankowsky and Crofford, with a trigger to control air flow between the air input and the air output as taught by Crofford with a reasonable expectation of success because the trigger is easier to operate that a ball valve with a pivoting lever.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan et al. US 8,919,853 in view of Yin US 9,908,227 and Krankowsky 2013/0105603.
Regarding claim 19, Krishnan et al., in view of Yin and Krankowsky, disclose an air wand which includes a handle portion (20; Fig. 2 of Krankowsky) aligned with a longitudinal axis of the air wand tube (27; Fig. 2of Krankowsky).
However, Krishnan et al., in view of Yin and Krankowsky, do not disclose that the air wand includes a nozzle which is aligned with the handle and extends along a common axis when in a stored position.
Notwithstanding, Crofford discloses an air wand (19; Figs. 11-12) which includes a nozzle assembly (43; 44) which includes a flexible, articulated portion (43; Figs. 10-12) which permits adjustment of the direction of nozzle (44; Fig. 10; col. 7, lines 44-46), where such direction adjustment is shown in Figure 11, and where the nozzle assembly (43, 44; Figs 10-12) can be aligned with a longitudinal axis of the air wand tube (42; Figs. 10-12), where such alignment is shown in Figs 10 and 12.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the air wand of Krishnan et al., in view of Yin and Krankowsky, to include a nozzle assembly including a nozzle in alignment with a longitudinal axis of the wand tube so that the nozzle is also aligned with the handle along a common axis extending through the air wand tube when in the stored position as taught by Crofford with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a nozzle provides greater air pressure and the provision of a flexible, articulated nozzle assembly portion provides for adjustment of the direction the air is blown from the air wand.
Regarding claim 20, the wand handle is considered to be a lever (21; Fig. 2 of Krankowsky; in that it is “a part that is designed especially to be grasped by the hand” as the term “handle” is defined at merriam-webster.com) which is selectively movable between a stored position as shown in Fig. 2 that is coaxial with the air wand tube and nozzle assembly to a deployed position when ball valve (20; Fig. 2) is closed so that where the wand handle (lever 21; Fig. 2) is angled with respect to the air wand tube and thus with respect to the nozzle so that the nozzle and wand handle are non-coaxial.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, 10, 14, 16 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 recitation in claims 7 and 14 of an input member that is selectively actuatable to unlock the air wand from the stored position and once deployed, the input member is biased to return to a lock position to hold the wand handle in the deployed position is not taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, Krankowsky 2013/0105603, the closest prior art air wand construction of record may be considered to disclose an input member (21; Fig. 2), however, it is not biased to return to a lock position to hold the wand handle in the deployed position as required by claims 7 and 14.
The recitation in claims 9 and 16 of a retainer bushing positioned in the hollow cavity to receive a distal end of the nozzle when in the stored position is not taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art combination of over Krishnan et al. US 8,919,853 in view of Yin US 9,908,227 and Krankowsky 2013/0105603 constitutes the closest prior art, however, there is no retainer bushing in the hollow cavity of the handle to receive a distal end of the nozzle when in the stored position. In addition, there is no prior art of record which suggests such a retainer bushing.
The recitation in claim 10 of one or more sensors to determine a handle and/or an air wand position characteristic and an electronically controlled locking mechanism actuatable such that the handle and/or the air wand cannot be removed unless commanded by a control device is not taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. The prior art combination of over Krishnan et al. US 8,919,853 in view of Yin US 9,908,227 and Krankowsky 2013/0105603 constitutes the closest prior art of record, however, there are no sensors to determine position of the handle or air wand or a control device cooperating therewith. In addition, there is no prior art of record which suggests such a sensor and control device configuration for a tool of any type which is selectively stored with a hollow cavity of a handle.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Siegler US 4,288,886 discloses an air broom with a nozzle (38; Fig. 1) which is coaxial with a longitudinal axis of wand 34. However, the air broom is not disclosed as being stored in a hollow cavity of a handle as recited in the current claims.
Heaman et al. US 7,712,811 disclose a retractable handle (40; Fig. 2) associated with a tailgate extender (10; Fig. 2). However, the handle is not disclosed as having a hollow cavity for storage of items, namely an air wand, as recited in the current claims.
Lingle US 8,251,423 discloses a handle (18; Fig. 1) adjacent to a vehicle tailgate (16; Fig. 1). However, the handle is not disclosed as having a hollow cavity for storage of items, namely an air wand, as recited in the current claims.
Lindl US 10,766,276 discloses an air wand (100; Fig. 2) with a nozzle (120; Fig. 2). However, Lindl does not disclose that the air wand is stored within a cavity of a handle as recited in the current claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 PM.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571)270-5500. 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.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights