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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The Reference character “28” is not found in the specification (Figs 1-4 and 16).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 17, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the outlet pressure” should be changed to –an outlet pressure—since this is the first time this is mentioned (Claim 1, Line 11).
The phrase “the elongate length” should be changed to –an elongate length—since this is the first time this is mentioned (Claim 2, Line 6).
The phrase “refill air that is injected from an outside source” should be changed to –the refill air that is injected from the outside source—for consistency (Claim 3, Line 7).
The phrase “at an included angle of from 20 to 70 degrees relative to a vertical axis” should be changed to –at the included angle of from 20 to 70 degrees relative to the vertical axis—for consistency (Claim 3, Lines 11-12).
The phrase “the elongate length” should be changed to –an elongate length—since this is the first time this is mentioned (Claim 4, Line 3).
The phrase “flow of refill air” should be changed to –a flow of the refill air—for consistency and to correct the grammatical error (Claim 6, Line 2).
The phrase “the elongate length” should be changed to –an elongate length—since this is the first time this is mentioned (Claim 8, Lines 4-5).
The phrase “a main body” should be changed to –the main body—for consistency (Claim 10, Line 3).
The phrase “a main body” should be changed to –the main body—for consistency (Claim 10, Lines 8-9).
The phrase “a main body” should be changed to –the main body—for consistency (Claim 10, Line 10).
The phrase “a main body” should be changed to –the main body—for consistency (Claim 10, Line 14).
The phrase “a high-pressure air tank” should be changed to –the high-pressure air tank—for consistency (Claim 10, Line 15).
The phrase “a main body” should be changed to –the main body—for consistency (Claim 17, Line 3).
The phrase “The reducer of claim 17” should be changed to –The SCBA harness of claim 17—for consistency with previous claims (Claim 18, Line 1).
The phrase “An SCBA comprising the SCBA harness claim 1” should be changed to –An SCBA comprising the SCBA harness of claim 1—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 19, Line 1).
The phrase “at least one high-pressure air tank” should be changed to – the at least one high-pressure air tank—for consistency (Claim 19, Line 3).
The phrase “high, tank pressure” should be changed to – high tank pressure—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 19, Line 3).
The phrase “facemask, at a breathing pressure” should be changed to—facemask at a breathing pressure –to correct the grammatical error (Claim 19, Line 10).
The phrase “high, tank pressure” should be changed to – high tank pressure—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 20, Line 2).
The phrase “a primary” should be changed to -- the primary – for consistency (Claim 20, Line 3).
The phrase “an outlet pressure” should be changed to – the outlet pressure—for consistency (Claim 20, Line 5).
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:
A metering assembly in Claim 1. The corresponding structure is the metering assembly 120 which utilizes a piston 122 to intermittently meter high-pressure air at a lower outlet pressure (Page 10, top paragraph; Fig 9).
A mask-mountable regulator in Claim 1. The corresponding structure is regulator 30 which reduces air pressure from outlet pressure to a pressure suitable for breathing and delivers it to a facemask (Page 4; middle paragraph; Fig 3).
An integrated pneumatic alerting device in Claim 16. The corresponding structure is the alerting device 140 which uses a piston 142 and element 144 capable of producing a high-pitched whistle sound when a high-pressure air flows through (Page 12; Fig 9).
A connecting assembly in Claim 19. The corresponding structure is connecting assembly 210 or 220 which is a screw-connection (threaded) assembly or a quick-connect fitting assembly (Page 20; Fig 4 and Fig 17) or similar.
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.
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 § 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 3-6, 10-15, and 17-21 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 3 states “a high-pressure air tank” (Line 8). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the high-pressure air tank is the same as the one mentioned in Claim 1. It appears the applicant was trying to say they’re the same. However, it is possible that multiple air tanks are involved. Therefore, the number of air tanks involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as they’re the same.
Claim 3 states “a high-pressure air tank” (Line 8). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the air tank is positively claimed. It appears the applicant was trying to say the air tank is not positively claimed and the reducer is merely configured to refill the air tank. However, the reducer is refilling the air tank which creates confusion regarding whether the air tank needs to be present to be refilled. Additionally, Claim 1 merely mentions that the backframe is configured to support at least one high-pressure air tank without actually positively claiming the air tank itself. Therefore, whether the air tank is positively claimed cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the device is merely configured to refill an air tank without the air tank being positively claimed.
Claim 6 states “air” (Line 3). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear what air this is referring to. It appears the applicant was trying to say this air is the same as the refill air. However, it is possible multiple types of air are involved. Therefore, the number of types of air involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the air is the same as the refill air.
Claim 10 states “can be” (Line 5 and Line 18 [two instances]). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the movements or actions performed are positively claimed. It appears the applicant was trying to say the fittings are configured to be moved relative to each other. However, the use of “can be” creates confusion regarding whether or not the movements or actions are actually performed. Therefore, the movements or actions being positively claimed cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the fittings are configured to perform these movements or actions. Similar rejections are applied to Claim 12 (Line 3) and Claim 17 (Lines 5-6).
Claim 10 states “a fitting of a high-pressure air tank” and “a high-pressure air tank” (Lines 4-5 and 15). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the high-pressure air tank is the same as the one mentioned in Claim 1. It appears the applicant was trying to say they’re the same. However, it is possible that multiple air tanks are involved. Therefore, the number of air tanks involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as they’re the same.
Claim 10 states “a fitting of a high-pressure air tank”, “in the process of attaching the fitting of the high-pressure air tank” and “when a high-pressure air tank is mounted” (Lines 4-6 and 15-16). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the high-pressure air tank is positively claimed. It appears the applicant was trying to say the air tank is not positively claimed and the device is merely capable of mounting or attaching the air tank. However, the use of “fitting”, “process of attaching”, and “when a high-pressure air tank is mounted” creates confusion regarding whether the air tank is required to be attached or mounted to the device. Additionally, Claim 1 merely mentions that the backframe is configured to support at least one high-pressure air tank without actually positively claiming the air tank itself. Therefore, whether the air tank is positively claimed cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the device is merely configured to mount or attach to an air tank without positively claiming the air tank itself.
Claim 14 states “if the harness comprises a refill hose and/or a rescue-breathing hose” (Lines 1-2). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the refill hose and/or the rescue-breathing hose are positively claimed. It appears the applicant was trying to say the refill hose and rescue-breathing hose are not positively claimed and that the device is merely capable of separating the hoses. However, the use of “if” creates confusion regarding whether these hoses are being positively claimed and are present on the device. Therefore, whether the hoses are positively claimed cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the refill hose and rescue-breathing hose are not positively claimed and the device is merely capable of separating the hoses.
Claim 14 states “such a hose or hoses” and “the hose or hoses remaining” (Lines 2-3). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear which hoses these are referring back to. It appears the applicant was trying to say the hoses involved are the refill hose, the rescue-breathing hose, the high-pressure gauge hose, and the delivery hose and that each hose is capable of being separated or fixed. However, the claim does not make it explicitly clear which hoses these are referring to. Therefore, the number of hoses involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as all of the hoses are capable of being separated or fixed to the backframe and/or the reducer.
Claim 19 states “breathing air at a high, tank pressure” (Line 3). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the breathing air is the same as the high-pressure air mentioned in Claim 1. It appears the applicant was trying to say they’re the same. However, it is possible these are two distinct types of air. Additionally, the breathing air is only produced once it exits the facemask, thus there is a confusion on how many types of air are involved. Therefore, the number of types of air involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as they’re the same.
Claim 19 states “receive air” (Line 9). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the received air is the same as the breathing air mentioned earlier or the high-pressure air mentioned in Claim 1. It appears the applicant was trying to say they’re the same. However, it is possible these are two distinct types of air. Therefore, the number of types of air involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as they’re the same.
Claim 20 states “receive air” (Line 2). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the received air is the same as the breathing air or air mentioned in Claim 19 or the high-pressure air mentioned in Claim 1. It appears the applicant was trying to say they’re the same. However, it is possible these are two or three distinct types of air. Therefore, the number of types of air involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as they’re the same.
Claims 4-6, 11-15, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected for being dependent on rejected Claims 3, 10, 17, and 19.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (English Machine Translation of KR 101887164 B1 provided by Espacenet) in view of Ferguson (US 5176169 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses an SCBA harness (apparatus of Fig 1 excluding 1, 30, and 40; a backpack having a mounting board on which an air tank is detachably mounted, paragraph 0017) comprising: a backframe (11, Figs 1-2) with a vertical axis (vertical axis going up and down 11, Figs 1-2) and an upper end (top end of 11, Figs 1-2) and a lower end (bottom end of 11, Figs 1-2), and an inward side (side of 11 closest to 13, Figs 1-2) and an outward side (side of 11 closest to 1, Figs 1-2), the backframe being configured to support at least one high-pressure air tank (1, Figs 1-2; depressurizing high-pressure air discharged from the air tank, paragraph 0017) on the outward side of the backframe (1 is on the side of 11 closest to 1, Figs 1-2); a waist strap (14, Figs 1-2) connected to the backframe and configured to encircle a user's waist and/or hip area (a waist belt installed on the mounting board, paragraph 0017); first and second shoulder straps (13, Figs 1-2) connected to the backframe and configured to pass over a user's shoulders (a shoulder strap and a waist belt installed on the mounting board, paragraph 0017); a reducer (200, Fig 2) mounted on the lower end of the backframe (200 at bottom end of 11, Figs 1-2) and comprising: a metering assembly (220, Figs 5-6) that is fluidically connected to a high-pressure air inlet (211, Figs 6-7; connection port (211) formed to receive high pressure air through the outlet (1a) of the air tank (1) connected to the coupler (CL), paragraph 0093) of the reducer (220 is connected to 211 via 213, Fig 6) and that is configured to accept high-pressure air and to meter the high-pressure air into an air-delivery pathway (pathway that connects 213 to 220, Fig 6) at the outlet pressure (pressure reduction port (217) communicates with the pressure reduction valve (220) described later as shown in the illustration and discharges the air, which has been primarily reduced in pressure by the pressure reduction valve (220), paragraph 0094), the air-delivery pathway of the reducer being fluidically connected to at least a primary air-delivery outlet (217, Fig 6) of the reducer (pathway that connects 213 to 220 is connected to 217, Fig 6) and the high-pressure air inlet of the reducer being fluidically connected to a high-pressure gauge air outlet (215, Fig 6) of the reducer; a high-pressure gauge (500, Figs 1 and 13; 500 is connected to H1 which is connected to 215, Fig 6) that is mounted on the harness (500 shown to be mounted on 13, Fig 1) and that is fluidically connected to the high- pressure gauge air outlet of the reducer (500 is connected to H1 which is connected to 215, Fig 6) by a high-pressure gauge hose (H1, Figs 1, 6, and 13) comprising a first end (end of H1 connected to 215, Fig 6) that is fixed in the high-pressure gauge air outlet of the reducer; and a mask-mountable regulator (30, Fig 1) that is fluidically connected to the primary air-delivery outlet of the reducer (30 is connected to H2 which is connected to 217, Figs 1 and 6) by a delivery hose (H2, Figs 1 and 6) comprising a first end (end of H2 connected to 217, Fig 6) that is fixed in the primary air-delivery outlet of the reducer; wherein the primary air-delivery outlet and the high-pressure gauge air outlet are each integral to a main body of the reducer (217 and 215 are integral to 200, Figs 5-6), wherein the primary air-delivery outlet defines a first hose-end direction (direction of 217 going upward, Fig 6) along which the first end of the delivery hose is oriented, wherein the high-pressure gauge air outlet defines a second hose-end direction (direction of 215 going upward, Fig 6) along which the first end of the high-pressure gauge hose is oriented, and wherein the first and second hose-end directions are each oriented upward (direction of 217 and direction of 215 are both going upward, Fig 6).
Kim fails to disclose the first and second hose-end directions are each oriented at an included angle of from 20 to 70 degrees relative to a vertical axis of the backframe, and are oriented at an angle of from 40 to 140 degrees relative to each other.
However, Ferguson, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a first stage SCUBA diving regulator (Abstract) including the first and second hose-end directions are each oriented at an included angle of from 20 to 70 degrees relative to a vertical axis of the air reservoir tank (longitudinal axes of the connector ports 106 and 110 are each at an angle of about 40 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the regulator body, Column 4, Lines 30-37; based on vertical axis going through 16, the resulting angle between the vertical axis and the longitudinal axes of 106 and 110 would be 50 degrees, see annotated Fig 3 below), and are oriented at an angle of from 40 to 140 degrees relative to each other (the angle between the longitudinal axes of 106 and 110 would be 100 degrees, see annotated Fig 3 below) to prevent the connecting hoses from becoming entangled (Column 1, Lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angles of the primary air-delivery outlet and the high-pressure gauge air outlet to each be 50 degrees from the vertical axis, as taught by Ferguson, to prevent the connecting hoses from becoming entangled (Ferguson: Column 1, Lines 5-15). This improvement would help to deflect the hoses away from each other so that the hoses do not overlap each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Kim-Ferguson combination teaches the delivery hose is routed upward along the backframe (Kim: H2 shown to be routed upward along 11, Figs 1-2), along a path (H2 shown to go outward and around a lateral edge of 17, Figs 1-4) that is laterally outward of a first lateral edge of a backframe electronics module (Kim: 17, Figs 1-4; lamp module (17) has a rear case (C2) combined with a front case (C1), and a substrate (17b) with a battery (B) and a light-emitting lamp (17a) mounted inside is embedded, paragraph 0206) that is laterally centrally located in the backframe (Kim: 17 shown to be centrally located on 11, Fig 3), and wherein the high-pressure gauge hose is routed upward along the backframe (Kim: H1 shown to be routed upward along 11, Figs 1-2), along a path that is laterally outward of a second, opposing lateral edge (Kim: H1 shown to go outward and around a lateral edge of 17 opposite of H2, Figs 1-4) of the backframe electronics module, with the delivery hose and the high-pressure gauge hose not crossing at any point along the elongate length of the hoses (Kim: H1 and H2 are shown to not cross over each other at any point along the length of H1 and H2, Figs 1-2).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim-Ferguson combination teaches the high-pressure air inlet of the reducer is fluidically connected to a refill air inlet (Kim: 240, Figs 5-6 and 11-12) of the reducer (Kim: 211 is fluidically connected to 240 via 213, Figs 6-7), and wherein the harness further comprises a refill hose (Kim: supply hose, paragraph 0111) with a first end comprising a first fitting that is fixedly inserted in the refill air inlet of the reducer to fluidically connect the first end of the refill hose to the refill air inlet of the reducer (Kim: when the outlet (1a) of another air tank (1) that supplies high-pressure air from outside the body (210) or the supply hose is connected to the end of the cover (243), the valve member (245) moves inside the valve casing (241) by high-pressure air, paragraph 0111; supply hose obviously has an end or fitting to connect the hose to 240) the refill hose having a second, opposing end comprising a second fitting that is configured to be removably fluidically connected to an outside source of refill air (Kim: when the outlet (1a) of another air tank (1) that supplies high-pressure air from outside the body (210) or the supply hose is connected to the end of the cover (243), the valve member (245) moves inside the valve casing (241) by high-pressure air, paragraph 0111; supply hose obviously is connected on its other end to an outside source of supply air), the reducer being configured so that refill air that is injected from an outside source into the second fitting of the refill hose can pass through the refill hose and the reducer to refill a high-pressure air tank that is fluidically connected to the high- pressure air inlet of the reducer (Kim: when the air refill is completed and the outlet (1a) or supply hose is removed, the valve member (245) returns to its original position as shown in FIG. 11, paragraph 0111; air tank (1) is refilled with air again, paragraph 0112); and wherein the refill air inlet defines a third hose-end direction (Kim: direction of 240 when connected to supply hose, Figs 5-6 and 11-12) along which the first end of the refill hose is oriented. It is noted that Applicant has not claimed any structural details regarding the fittings.
The current Kim-Ferguson combination fails to teach the third hose-end direction is oriented upward, at an included angle of from 20 to 70 degrees relative to a vertical axis of backframe.
However, Ferguson further teaches the hose-end direction is oriented upward (110 and 106 oriented upward, Figs 2-3), at an included angle of from 20 to 70 degrees relative to a vertical axis of backframe (longitudinal axes of the connector ports 106 and 110 are each at an angle of about 40 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the regulator body, Column 4, Lines 30-37; based on vertical axis going through 16, the resulting angle between the vertical axis and the longitudinal axes of 106 and 110 would be 50 degrees, see annotated Fig 3 below) to prevent the connecting hoses from becoming entangled (Column 1, Lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the refill air inlet to be 50 degrees from the vertical axis, as taught by Ferguson, to prevent the connecting hoses from becoming entangled (Ferguson: Column 1, Lines 5-15). This improvement would help to deflect the hoses away from each other so that the hoses do not overlap each other. The angles would also make the hoses protruding from the regulator more compact.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Kim-Ferguson combination teaches the third hose-end direction defined by the refill air inlet is aligned within plus or minus 10 degrees of parallel to the first hose-end direction defined by the primary air-delivery outlet (Ferguson: longitudinal axes of the connector ports 106 and 110 are each at an angle of about 40 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the regulator body, Column 4, Lines 30-37; based on vertical axis going through 16, the resulting angle between the vertical axis and the longitudinal axes of 106 and 110 would be 50 degrees, see annotated Fig 3 above; since the refill air inlet 240 of Kim has been modified to be 50 degrees from the vertical axis and the primary air-delivery outlet 217 of Kim has been modified to be 50 degrees from the vertical axis, the inlet and outlet would be parallel to each other due to sharing the same angle and direction).
Regarding Claim 19, Kim-Ferguson combination teaches an SCBA (Kim: apparatus of Fig 1 including 1, 30, and 40) comprising the SCBA harness of Claim 1 (See Rejection of Claim 1 above), the SCBA further comprising: at least one high-pressure air tank (Kim: 1, Figs 1-2) filled with breathing air at a high, tank pressure (Kim: depressurizing high-pressure air discharged from the air tank, paragraph 0017), the air tank being secured to the backframe of the SCBA harness (Kim: 1 shown to be connected to 11, Figs 1-2) and a high-pressure air outlet (Kim: 1a, Figs 2 and 7) of the air tank being fluidically connected to the high-pressure air inlet of the reducer by a connecting assembly (Kim: CL, Fig 7; connection port (211) formed to receive high pressure air through the outlet (1a) of the air tank (1) connected to the coupler (CL), paragraph 0093); and, a facemask (Kim: 40, Fig 1) configured to be worn by a user (Kim: the wearer can breathe through secondary depressurized air supplied to the mask (40), paragraph 0088), the facemask defining an interior region adjacent the user's face when the facemask is donned by the user (Kim: mask 40 shown to have a interior cavity, Figs 1, 16-19), wherein the mask-mountable regulator (Kim: 30, Fig 1) is mounted on the facemask (Kim: sub-regulator (30) is connected to the pressure reducing hose (H2) as shown in FIG. 1 and mounted on the mask (40), paragraph 0088) and is configured to receive air from the delivery hose at the outlet pressure and to admit the air into the interior region defined by the facemask, at a breathing pressure that is lower than the outlet pressure (Kim: sub-regulator (30) has a normal pressure reducing valve built inside and reduces the pressure of the primary pressure-reducing air supplied through the pressure-reducing hose (H2) to the mask (40), paragraph 0088).
Regarding Claim 20, Kim-Ferguson combination teaches the reducer is a load-bearing item (Kim: 200 shown to be connected to 1 and would carry the load of 1 due to its connection and gravity, Fig 2) that, in addition to being configured to receive air from the high-pressure air tank at a high, tank pressure through the high-pressure air inlet of the reducer and to deliver the air through at least a primary air-delivery outlet of the reducer at an outlet pressure (Kim: 211, Figs 6-7; connection port (211) formed to receive high pressure air through the outlet (1a) of the air tank (1) connected to the coupler (CL), paragraph 0093), is connected to the backframe (Kim: 200 at bottom end of 11, Figs 1-2) and is configured to transmit the weight of the high-pressure air tank to the backframe of the SCBA harness (Kim: due to the connection of 200 with 1, some of the weight from 1 would obviously be transmitted to 11, Figs 1-2; main regulator (200) is installed on the lower part of the mounting board (11) on which the air tank (1) is mounted and is connected to the outlet (1a) of the air tank (1) through a conventional air tank connection coupler (CL), paragraph 0087; a mounting board (11) on which an air tank (1) is detachably mounted, paragraph 0086).
Kim-Ferguson combination fails to explicitly teach the reducer transmitting at least 80% of the weight of the high-pressure air tank to the backframe of the SCBA harness.
However, Kim teaches that the regulator 200 is connected to 11 and is connected to 1 via 1a and CL (Kim: paragraph 0087). Since Kim already teaches a similar configuration or arrangement to the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the regulator 200 of Kim would be capable of transmitting at least 80% of the weight of the tank 1 to the backframe/mounting board 11 of the SCBA harness of Kim. It is noted that the instant specification of the instant invention merely describes the reducer being capable of supporting at least some of the weight of the air tank and transmitting at least some percentage of the weight, without actually specifying any specific structural details that make this reducer unique or novel in transmitting the 80% of the weight (Specification: bottom paragraph, Page 3 and top paragraph, Page 4). In other words, Applicant has not provided any evidence or details regarding the prior art reducer/regulator being incapable of providing this amount of weight transmission. Since it is shown that the regulator 200 is capable of carrying the tank 1, then it is obvious that the entire weight of tank 1 would be carried by 200 and would be transmitted, either most or all, to the mounting board 11 due to 200’s connection with 11. Additionally, the claim does not specify what scenario or condition in which the weight of the tank is being transmitted to the backframe. Since the direction of gravity changes depending on the orientation of the SCBA harness, there would be instances in which most or all of the weight of the tank is transmitted to the backframe via the reducer by laying the SCBA harness horizontally or orienting it at a 45 degree angle, for example. There is nothing in the claim that requires the SCBA harness to be oriented in an upright position so that the direction of gravity is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tank or similar.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the regulator being capable of transmitting at least 80% of the weight of the tank to the mounting board, as taught by Kim, due to the similar configurations and connections involved in Kim that match with the claimed invention. Applicant has not claimed any specific, novel structural details that would perform this weight transmission differently from Kim.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (English Machine Translation of KR 101887164 B1 provided by Espacenet) and Ferguson (US 5176169 A) as applied to Claim 3, and in further view of Wrigley et al. (US 2010/0282795 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim-Ferguson combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 3. Kim-Ferguson combination also teaches the hoses H1 and H2 are held on the shoulder straps 13 (Kim: Fig 1). Kim-Ferguson combination fails to teach the refill hose is routed generally laterally along a first lateral section of the waist strap of the SCBA harness, with the refill hose not crossing the delivery hose or the high-pressure gauge hose at any point along the elongate length of the refill hose, delivery hose, and high-pressure gauge hose.
However, Wrigley, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a clip that attaches a flexible conduit onto a strap (Abstract) including a hose is routed generally laterally along a first lateral section of the waist strap of the SCBA harness, with the hose not crossing another hose at any point along the elongate length of the hose and other hose (70a and 70 shown to have different hoses next to each other and not crossing along the length, Fig 4; two identical clips 70, 70a are shown, fitted to the same strap, each holding a hose, the upper clip in the picture holds the hose on the left-hand side of the strap, while the other clip 70 holds its hose on the right, two hoses can be fitted to the same strap without getting in each other's way, paragraph 0024) to allow multiple hoses to be fitted onto the straps without getting in each other’s way (paragraph 0024) and reduce the risk of snapping by holding the conduit tightly against the strap (paragraph 0001).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add clips to hold the refill hose along the shoulder straps without allowing the hose to cross over other hoses, as taught by Wrigley, to allow multiple hoses to be fitted onto the straps without getting in each other’s way (Wrigley: paragraph 0024) and reduce the risk of snapping by holding the conduit tightly against the strap (Wrigley: paragraph 0001). This addition would ensure better organization of the hoses attached to the device and prevents the hoses from snagging. This is particularly useful when the refill hose is not in use and when the refill air source is not connected to the refill hose.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (English Machine Translation of KR 101887164 B1 provided by Espacenet) and Ferguson (US 5176169 A) as applied to Claim 3, and in further view of Jackson (US 20030116156 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim-Ferguson combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 3. Kim-Ferguson combination also teaches 240 is a refill valve (Kim: paragraph 0106). Kim-Ferguson combination fails to teach the first fitting of the refill hose comprises a one-way valve that allows flow of refill air into the refill air inlet but does not allow air to exit out of the refill air inlet.
However, Jackson, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a recharging valve for a breathing apparatus (Abstract) including the first fitting of the refill hose comprises a one-way valve that allows flow of refill air into the refill air inlet but does not allow air to exit out of the refill air inlet (non-return valve 15 may be added to prevent air flowing out of the apparatus when the charging cylinder is disconnected, by means of a high pressure hose 16 fitted with a mating coupling 17 and connected to a high pressure air source 18, the apparatus may be charged with air through coupling 13, paragraph 0006) to prevent air from flowing out of apparatus when charging cylinder is disconnected (paragraph 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hose to have a fitting with a non-return or one-way valve, as taught by Jackson, to prevent air from flowing out of apparatus when charging cylinder is disconnected (Jackson: paragraph 0006). The valve ensures that the gas in the refill cylinder or source does not escape into the environment and controls the direction of air so that the air properly enters the cylinder.
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (English Machine Translation of KR 101887164 B1 provided by Espacenet) and Ferguson (US 5176169 A) as applied to Claims 1 and 19, and in further view of Ke et al. (English Machine Translation of CN 108744333 A provided by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim-Ferguson combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 1. Kim-Ferguson combination fails to teach the reducer comprises a secondary air-delivery outlet that is fluidly connected to the air-delivery pathway of the reducer, and wherein the harness further comprises a rescue-breathing hose with a first end comprising a first fitting that is fixedly inserted in the secondary air-delivery outlet of the reducer to fluidically connect the first end of the rescue-breathing hose to the secondary air-delivery outlet of the reducer, the rescue- breathing hose having a second end comprising a second fitting that is configured to be fluidically connected to a fitting of a donee SCBA; and wherein the secondary air-delivery outlet defines a fourth hose-end direction along which the first end of the rescue-breathing hose is oriented, and wherein the fourth hose-end direction is oriented upward, at an included angle of from 20 to 80 degrees relative to the vertical axis of backframe.
However, Ke, of the same field of endeavor, teaches an air respirator of fire rescue equipment (paragraph 0002) including the reducer comprises a secondary air-delivery outlet (21, Fig 2) that is fluidly connected to the air-delivery pathway of the reducer (2, Fig 2), and wherein the harness further comprises a rescue-breathing hose (3, Fig 2) with a first end (end of 3 connected to 21, Fig 2) comprising a first fitting (fitting of 3 connected to 21, Fig 2) that is fixedly inserted in the secondary air-delivery outlet of the reducer to fluidically connect the first end of the rescue-breathing hose to the secondary air-delivery outlet of the reducer (a medium-pressure pipe 3 is provided on each pair of output ports 21, air supply connector 31 is provided at the end of each pair of medium-pressure pipes 3, paragraph 0048; fitting of 3 shown to be connected to 21 which is connected to reducer 2, Fig 2), the rescue- breathing hose having a second end (end of 3 connected to 4, Fig 1) comprising a second fitting (fitting of 3 connected to 4 or 31, Fig 1) that is configured to be fluidically connected to a fitting of a donee SCBA (4, Fig 1; air supply connector 31 is provided at the end of each pair of medium-pressure pipes 3, full-face mask 4 is provided on each pair of air supply connectors 31, paragraph 0048); and wherein the secondary air-delivery outlet defines a fourth hose-end direction (direction of 3 coming out from 21, Fig 2) along which the first end of the rescue-breathing hose is oriented, and wherein the fourth hose-end direction is oriented upward (3 is shown to be oriented upward from 21, Fig 2) to reduce the load on a firefighter, increase rescue rate, and allow firefighters to rescue a person in distress during rescue operations (paragraph 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reducer to have an additional air-delivery outlet that connects to a rescue-breathing hose and an additional mask, as taught by Ke, to reduce the load on a firefighter, increase rescue rate, and allow firefighters to rescue a person in distress during rescue operations (Ke: paragraph 0010). This improvement allows the device to be used in rescue operations and ensures people in distress have their own mask to breathe while relying on the firefighter’s own oxygen supply.
Kim-Ferguson-Ke combination teaches that the secondary air-delivery outlet 21 is angled compared to the primary outlet (Ke: Figs 1-2 shows the two hoses branching at different angles).
Kim-Ferguson-Ke combination fails to explicitly teach the fourth hose-end direction at an included angle of from 20 to 80 degrees relative to the vertical axis of backframe.
However, Ferguson further teaches a hose-end direction at an included angle of from 20 to 80 degrees relative to the vertical axis of backframe (longitudinal axes of the connector ports 106 and 110 are each at an angle of about 40 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the regulator body, Column 4, Lines 30-37; based on vertical axis going through 16, the resulting angle between the vertical axis and the longitudinal axes of 106 and 110 would be 50 degrees, see annotated Fig 3 below) to prevent the connecting hoses from becoming entangled (Column 1, Lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the secondary air-delivery outlet to be 50 degrees from the vertical axis, as taught by Ferguson, to prevent the connecting hoses from becoming entangled (Ferguson: Column 1, Lines 5-15). This improvement would help to deflect the hoses away from each other so that the hoses do not overlap each other, as already shown in Ke. The angles would also make the hoses protruding from the regulator more compact. One of ordinary skill in the art would obviously be motivated to change the angle of the outlets in such a way to accommodate for the various hoses connected to the regulator.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, Kim-Ferguson combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 19. Kim-Ferguson combination fails to teach the reducer comprises a secondary air-delivery outlet that is fluidly connected to the air-delivery pathway of the reducer, and wherein the harness further comprises an airline hose with a first end comprising a first fitting that is fixedly inserted in the secondary air-delivery outlet of the reducer to fluidically connect the first end of the airline hose to the secondary air-delivery outlet of the reducer, the airline hose having a second end comprising a second fitting that is configured to be fluidically connected to a fitting of an air-supplying umbilical; and wherein the secondary air-delivery outlet defines a fourth hose-end direction along which the first end of the airline hose is oriented, and wherein the fourth hose-end direction is oriented upward, at an included angle of from 20 to 80 degrees relative to the vertical axis of backframe.
However, Ke, of the same field of endeavor, teaches an air respirator of fire rescue equipment (paragraph 0002) including the reducer comprises a secondary air-delivery outlet (21, Fig 2) that is fluidly connected to the air-delivery pathway of the reducer (2, Fig 2), and wherein the harness further comprises an airline hose (3, Fig 2) with a first end (end of 3 connected to 21, Fig 2) comprising a first fitting (fitting of 3 connected to 21, Fig 2) that is fixedly inserted in the secondary air-delivery outlet of the reducer to fluidically connect the first end of the airline hose to the secondary air-delivery outlet of the reducer (a medium-pressure pipe 3 is provided on each pair of output ports 21, air supply connector 31 is provided at the end of each pair of medium-pressure pipes 3, paragraph 0048; fitting of 3 shown to be connected to 21 which is connected to reducer 2, Fig 2), the airline hose having a second end (end of 3 connected to 4, Fig 1) comprising a second fitting (fitting of 3 connected to 4 or 31, Fig 1) that is configured to be fluidically connected to a fitting of an air-supplying umbilical (4, Fig 1; air supply connector 31 is provided at the end of each pair of medium-pressure pipes 3, full-face mask 4 is provided on each pair of air supply connectors 31, paragraph 0048; the mask is acting as an umbilical since it is feeding air to the secondary user); and wherein the secondary air-delivery outlet defines a fourth hose-end direction (direction of 3 coming out from 21, Fig 2) along which the first end of the airline hose is oriented, and wherein the fourth hose-end direction is oriented upward (3 is shown to be oriented upward from 21, Fig 2) to reduce the load on a firefighter, increase rescue rate, and allow firefighters to rescue a person in distress during rescue operations (paragraph 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reducer to have an additional air-delivery outlet that connects to an airline hose and an additional mask, as taught by Ke, to reduce the load on a firefighter, increase rescue rate, and allow firefighters to rescue a person in distress during rescue operations (Ke: paragraph 0010). This improvement allows the device to be used in rescue operations and ensures people in distress have their own mask to breathe while relying on the firefighter’s own oxygen supply. It is noted that Applicant has not claimed further structural details on what the “air-supplying umbilical” is. Since the second mask is supplying air to a secondary user, the second mask itself is acting as an air-supplying umbilical.
Kim-Ferguson-Ke combination teaches that the secondary air-delivery outlet 21 is angled compared to the primary outlet (Ke: Figs 1-2 shows the two hoses branching at different angles).
Kim-Ferguson-Ke combination fails to explicitly teach the fourth hose-end direction at an included angle of from 20 to 80 degrees relative to the vertical axis of backframe.
However, Ferguson further teaches a hose-end direction at an included angle of from 20 to 80 degrees relative to the vertical axis of backframe (longitudinal axes of the connector ports 106 and 110 are each at an angle of about 40 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the regulator body, Column 4, Lines 30-37; based on vertical axis going through 16, the resulting angle between the vertical axis and the longitudinal axes of 106 and 110 would be 50 degrees, see annotated Fig 3 below) to prevent the connecting hoses from becoming entangled (Column 1, Lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the secondary air-delivery outlet to be 50 degrees from the vertical axis, as taught by Ferguson, to prevent the connecting hoses from becoming entangled (Ferguson: Column 1, Lines 5-15). This improvement would help to deflect the hoses away from each other so that the hoses do not overlap each other, as already shown in Ke. The angles would also make the hoses protruding from the regulator more compact. One of ordinary skill in the art would obviously be motivated to change the angle of the outlets in such a way to accommodate for the various hoses connected to the regulator.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (English Machine Translation of KR 101887164 B1 provided by Espacenet), Ferguson (US 5176169 A), and Ke et al. (English Machine Translation of CN 108744333 A provided by Espacenet) as applied to Claim 7, and in further view of Wrigley et al. (US 2010/0282795 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim-Ferguson-Ke combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 7. Kim-Ferguson-Ke combination also teaches the hoses H1 and H2 are held on the shoulder straps 13 (Kim: Fig 1). Kim-Ferguson-Ke combination fails to teach the rescue-breathing hose is routed generally laterally along a second lateral section of the waist strap of the SCBA harness, which second, lateral section laterally opposes a first lateral section of the waist strap of the SCBA harness, with the rescue-breathing hose not crossing the delivery hose or the refill hose at any point along the elongate length of the rescue-breathing hose, delivery hose, and refill hose.
However, Wrigley, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a clip that attaches a flexible conduit onto a strap (Abstract) including a hose is routed generally laterally along a second lateral section of the waist strap of the SCBA harness, which second, lateral section laterally opposes a first lateral section of the waist strap of the SCBA harness (clips 70 shown to be used on both straps on both sides of the device, Fig 1), with the hose not crossing another hose at any point along the elongate length of the hose and other hose (70a and 70 shown to have different hoses next to each other and not crossing along the length, Fig 4; two identical clips 70, 70a are shown, fitted to the same strap, each holding a hose, the upper clip in the picture holds the hose on the left-hand side of the strap, while the other clip 70 holds its hose on the right, two hoses can be fitted to the same strap without getting in each other's way, paragraph 0024) to allow multiple hoses to be fitted onto the straps without getting in each other’s way (paragraph 0024) and reduce the risk of snapping by holding the conduit tightly against the strap (paragraph 0001).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add clips to hold the rescue breathing hose along the shoulder straps without allowing the hose to cross over other hoses, as taught by Wrigley, to allow multiple hoses to be fitted onto the straps without getting in each other’s way (Wrigley: paragraph 0024) and reduce the risk of snapping by holding the conduit tightly against the strap (Wrigley: paragraph 0001). This addition would ensure better organization of the hoses attached to the device and prevents the hoses from snagging. This can be useful particularly when the mask is not in use or the rescue breathing hose is not in use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-18 contain allowable subject matter.
Claims 9 and 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.
Claims 10-15, 17, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Claim 9 is dependent on Claim 7 and discusses a specific kind of orientation for the high-pressure gauge air outlet in which it has to be at an inward angle relative to a secondary air-delivery outlet.
Claim 10 is dependent on Claim 1 and discusses a cradle that allows the reducer to positioned at various angles in relation to the backframe and the fitting of the air tank being positioned and aligned with an insertion axis of the reducer.
Claim 16 is dependent on Claim 1 and discusses two spring-biased pistons, one for the metering assembly and one for a pneumatic alerting device, that are on a common plane and are substantially parallel to each other.
Claims 11-15, 17, and 18 contain allowable subject matter due to their dependencies on Claims 10 and 16.
Prior art similar to the claimed invention are explained below.
Kim (English Machine Translation of KR 101887164 B1 provided by Espacenet) discusses a SCBA. Regarding Claim 9, though Kim teaches a high-pressure gauge air outlet, Kim does not discuss the high-pressure gauge air outlet being at an inward angle in relation to another outlet. The claimed structure is depicted in the instant drawings (Drawings: 132 and 114, Fig 9). This type of orientation would be non-obvious since it would require drastic modifications to the overall layout and structure of the reducer. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to orient these outlets to be in this specific angle and configuration. Even with the addition of Ke et al. (English Machine Translation of CN 108744333 A provided by Espacenet) to teach the secondary outlet, there would be no reason to orient the gauge air outlet to be at an inward angle in relation to the secondary outlet. Regarding Claim 10, Kim does not teach the specific structural and angular details involved in the claim. Kim does teach the use of component 201 and BT (Kim: Fig 3) but this feature is not elaborated on in Kim. Carr et al. (US 20110048421 A1) does teach a similar component to Kim (Carr: Fig 5), but there is no motivation provided in Carr that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to have Kim have a reducer and cradle that changes angles. Additionally, drastic modifications to Kim would need to be made to meet the claimed invention. Regarding Claim 16, Kim does teach the two pistons at 220 and 230 (Kim: Fig 6). However, 220 and 230 are not parallel to each other but are perpendicular to each other. Having 220 and 230 to be parallel to each other would require drastic modifications to the overall structure of the reducer/regulator and there is no motivation in Kim to perform such a change.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 19-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/832,902, hereafter ‘902, in view of Kim (English Machine Translation of KR 101887164 B1 provided by Espacenet) and Ferguson (US 5176169 A). Although the claims are not identical, the instant claims would be anticipated and/or made obvious by the cited application and prior art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claim 1, ‘902 discloses most of the claimed invention (Claim 14) except for: the high-pressure air inlet of the reducer being fluidically connected to a high-pressure gauge air outlet of the reducer; a high-pressure gauge that is mounted on the harness and that is fluidically connected to the high- pressure gauge air outlet of the reducer by a high-pressure gauge hose comprising a first end that is fixed in the high-pressure gauge air outlet of the reducer; wherein the primary air-delivery outlet and the high-pressure gauge air outlet are each integral to a main body of the reducer, wherein the primary air-delivery outlet defines a first hose-end direction along which the first end of the delivery hose is oriented, wherein the high-pressure gauge air outlet defines a second hose-end direction along which the first end of the high-pressure gauge hose is oriented, and wherein the first and second hose-end directions are each oriented upward, at an included angle of from 20 to 70 degrees relative to a vertical axis of the backframe, and are oriented at an angle of from 40 to 140 degrees relative to each other.
However, Kim, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a portable air supply device (paragraph 0001) including the high-pressure air inlet of the reducer being fluidically connected to a high-pressure gauge air outlet (215, Fig 6) of the reducer; a high-pressure gauge (500, Figs 1 and 13; 500 is connected to H1 which is connected to 215, Fig 6) that is mounted on the harness (500 shown to be mounted on 13, Fig 1) and that is fluidically connected to the high- pressure gauge air outlet of the reducer (500 is connected to H1 which is connected to 215, Fig 6) by a high-pressure gauge hose (H1, Figs 1, 6, and 13) comprising a first end (end of H1 connected to 215, Fig 6) that is fixed in the high-pressure gauge air outlet of the reducer; wherein the primary air-delivery outlet and the high-pressure gauge air outlet are each integral to a main body of the reducer (217 and 215 are integral to 200, Figs 5-6), wherein the primary air-delivery outlet defines a first hose-end direction (direction of 217 going upward, Fig 6) along which the first end of the delivery hose is oriented, wherein the high-pressure gauge air outlet defines a second hose-end direction (direction of 215 going upward, Fig 6) along which the first end of the high-pressure gauge hose is oriented, and wherein the first and second hose-end directions are each oriented upward (direction of 217 and direction of 215 are both going upward, Fig 6) since it is known to provide a high-pressure gauge on a SCBA for the purposes of measuring the pressure of air inside of the tank (paragraph 0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a high pressure gauge with its own outlet, as taught by Kim, since it is known to provide a high-pressure gauge on a SCBA for the purposes of measuring the pressure of air inside of the tank (Kim: paragraph 0068). This makes it easier to monitor the amount of air left in the tank while in use.
‘902-Kim combination fails to teach the first and second hose-end directions are each oriented at an included angle of from 20 to 70 degrees relative to a vertical axis of the backframe, and are oriented at an angle of from 40 to 140 degrees relative to each other.
However, Ferguson, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a first stage SCUBA diving regulator (Abstract) including the first and second hose-end directions are each oriented at an included angle of from 20 to 70 degrees relative to a vertical axis of the air reservoir tank (longitudinal axes of the connector ports 106 and 110 are each at an angle of about 40 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the regulator body, Column 4, Lines 30-37; based on vertical axis going through 16, the resulting angle between the vertical axis and the longitudinal axes of 106 and 110 would be 50 degrees, see annotated Fig 3 below), and are oriented at an angle of from 40 to 140 degrees relative to each other (the angle between the longitudinal axes of 106 and 110 would be 100 degrees, see annotated Fig 3 below) to prevent the connecting hoses from becoming entangled (Column 1, Lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angles of the primary air-delivery outlet and the high-pressure gauge air outlet to each be 50 degrees from the vertical axis, as taught by Ferguson, to prevent the connecting hoses from becoming entangled (Ferguson: Column 1, Lines 5-15). This improvement would help to deflect the hoses away from each other so that the hoses do not overlap each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, the current ‘902-Kim-Ferguson combination fails to teach all of the claimed invention.
However, Kim further teaches the delivery hose is routed upward along the backframe (Kim: H2 shown to be routed upward along 11, Figs 1-2), along a path (H2 shown to go outward and around a lateral edge of 17, Figs 1-4) that is laterally outward of a first lateral edge of a backframe electronics module (Kim: 17, Figs 1-4; lamp module (17) has a rear case (C2) combined with a front case (C1), and a substrate (17b) with a battery (B) and a light-emitting lamp (17a) mounted inside is embedded, paragraph 0206) that is laterally centrally located in the backframe (Kim: 17 shown to be centrally located on 11, Fig 3), and wherein the high-pressure gauge hose is routed upward along the backframe (Kim: H1 shown to be routed upward along 11, Figs 1-2), along a path that is laterally outward of a second, opposing lateral edge (Kim: H1 shown to go outward and around a lateral edge of 17 opposite of H2, Figs 1-4) of the backframe electronics module, with the delivery hose and the high-pressure gauge hose not crossing at any point along the elongate length of the hoses (Kim: H1 and H2 are shown to not cross over each other at any point along the length of H1 and H2, Figs 1-2) since this is a known configuration and arrangement for the hoses and since it is known to add a lamp module for the purposes of warning the user of dangerous situations like air tank depletion (Kim: paragraph 0209).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an electronic module to the backframe and to arrange the hoses to go upward and around the module, as taught by Kim, since this is a known configuration and arrangement for the hoses and since it is known to add a lamp module for the purposes of warning the user of dangerous situations like air tank depletion (Kim: paragraph 0209).
Regarding Claim 3, the current ‘902-Kim-Ferguson combination teaches most of the claimed invention (‘902: Claim 17 or Claim 20) except for: the third hose-end direction is oriented upward, at an included angle of from 20 to 70 degrees relative to a vertical axis of backframe.
However, Ferguson further teaches the hose-end direction is oriented upward (110 and 106 oriented upward, Figs 2-3), at an included angle of from 20 to 70 degrees relative to a vertical axis of backframe (longitudinal axes of the connector ports 106 and 110 are each at an angle of about 40 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the regulator body, Column 4, Lines 30-37; based on vertical axis going through 16, the resulting angle between the vertical axis and the longitudinal axes of 106 and 110 would be 50 degrees, see annotated Fig 3 below) to prevent the connecting hoses from becoming entangled (Column 1, Lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the refill air inlet to be 50 degrees from the vertical axis, as taught by Ferguson, to prevent the connecting hoses from becoming entangled (Ferguson: Column 1, Lines 5-15). This improvement would help to deflect the hoses away from each other so that the hoses do not overlap each other. The angles would also make the hoses protruding from the regulator more compact.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, ‘902-Kim-Ferguson combination teaches the third hose-end direction defined by the refill air inlet is aligned within plus or minus 10 degrees of parallel to the first hose-end direction defined by the primary air-delivery outlet (Ferguson: longitudinal axes of the connector ports 106 and 110 are each at an angle of about 40 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the regulator body, Column 4, Lines 30-37; based on vertical axis going through 16, the resulting angle between the vertical axis and the longitudinal axes of 106 and 110 would be 50 degrees, see annotated Fig 3 above; since the refill air inlet 240 of ‘902 has been modified to be 50 degrees from the vertical axis and the primary air-delivery outlet 217 of ‘902 has been modified to be 50 degrees from the vertical axis, the inlet and outlet would be parallel to each other due to sharing the same angle and direction).
Regarding Claim 6, ‘902-Kim-Ferguson combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘902: Claim 17).
Regarding Claim 7, the current ‘902-Kim-Ferguson combination teaches most of the claimed invention (‘902: Claim 16) except for: the fourth hose-end direction at an included angle of from 20 to 80 degrees relative to the vertical axis of backframe.
However, Ferguson further teaches a hose-end direction at an included angle of from 20 to 80 degrees relative to the vertical axis of backframe (longitudinal axes of the connector ports 106 and 110 are each at an angle of about 40 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the regulator body, Column 4, Lines 30-37; based on vertical axis going through 16, the resulting angle between the vertical axis and the longitudinal axes of 106 and 110 would be 50 degrees, see annotated Fig 3 below) to prevent the connecting hoses from becoming entangled (Column 1, Lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the secondary air-delivery outlet to be 50 degrees from the vertical axis, as taught by Ferguson, to prevent the connecting hoses from becoming entangled (Ferguson: Column 1, Lines 5-15). This improvement would help to deflect the hoses away from each other so that the hoses do not overlap each other. The angles would also make the hoses protruding from the regulator more compact. One of ordinary skill in the art would obviously be motivated to change the angle of the outlets in such a way to accommodate for the various hoses connected to the regulator.
Regarding Claim 19, ‘902-Kim-Ferguson combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘902: Claim 19).
Regarding Claim 20, the current ‘902-Kim-Ferguson combination teaches most of the claimed invention (‘902: Claim 14; since the backframe is configured to support the air tank and the regulator is configured to receive air from the air tank, the regulator must obviously be connected to the backframe and is supporting the air tank) except for: the reducer transmitting at least 80% of the weight of the high-pressure air tank to the backframe of the SCBA harness.
However, since ‘902 already teaches a similar configuration or arrangement to the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the reducer of ‘902 would be capable of transmitting at least 80% of the weight of the tank to the backframe of the device. It is noted that the instant specification of the instant invention merely describes the reducer being capable of supporting at least some of the weight of the air tank and transmitting at least some percentage of the weight, without actually specifying any specific structural details that make this reducer unique or novel in transmitting the 80% of the weight (Specification: bottom paragraph, Page 3 and top paragraph, Page 4). In other words, Applicant has not provided any evidence or details regarding the reducer being incapable of providing this amount of weight transmission. Since it is obvious that the reducer is connected to the backframe due to the backframe supporting the tank, then it is obvious that the entire weight of tank would be supported by the reducer and would be transmitted, either most or all, to the backframe due to the reducer’s connection to the backframe. Additionally, the claim does not specify what scenario or condition in which the weight of the tank is being transmitted to the backframe. Since the direction of gravity changes depending on the orientation of the SCBA harness, there would be instances in which most or all of the weight of the tank is transmitted to the backframe via the reducer by laying the SCBA harness horizontally or orienting it at a 45 degree angle, for example. There is nothing in the claim that requires the SCBA harness to be oriented in an upright position so that the direction of gravity is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tank or similar.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the reducer being capable of transmitting at least 80% of the weight of the tank to the backframe, as taught by ‘902, due to the similar configurations and connections involved in ‘902 that match with the claimed invention. Applicant has not claimed any specific, novel structural details that would perform this weight transmission differently from ‘902.
Regarding Claim 21, the current ‘902-Kim-Ferguson combination teaches most of the claimed invention (‘902: Claim 16) except for: the fourth hose-end direction at an included angle of from 20 to 80 degrees relative to the vertical axis of backframe.
However, Ferguson further teaches a hose-end direction at an included angle of from 20 to 80 degrees relative to the vertical axis of backframe (longitudinal axes of the connector ports 106 and 110 are each at an angle of about 40 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the regulator body, Column 4, Lines 30-37; based on vertical axis going through 16, the resulting angle between the vertical axis and the longitudinal axes of 106 and 110 would be 50 degrees, see annotated Fig 3 below) to prevent the connecting hoses from becoming entangled (Column 1, Lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the secondary air-delivery outlet to be 50 degrees from the vertical axis, as taught by Ferguson, to prevent the connecting hoses from becoming entangled (Ferguson: Column 1, Lines 5-15). This improvement would help to deflect the hoses away from each other so that the hoses do not overlap each other, as already shown in Ke. The angles would also make the hoses protruding from the regulator more compact. One of ordinary skill in the art would obviously be motivated to change the angle of the outlets in such a way to accommodate for the various hoses connected to the regulator.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 4 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16 and 17 of copending Application No. 18/832,902, hereafter ‘902, Kim (English Machine Translation of KR 101887164 B1 provided by Espacenet) and Ferguson (US 5176169 A) as applied to Claims 3 and 7, and in further view of Wrigley et al. (US 2010/0282795 A1). Although the claims are not identical, the instant claims would be anticipated and/or made obvious by the cited application and prior art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claim 4, ‘902-Kim-Ferguson combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 3. ‘902-Kim-Ferguson combination also teaches the hoses H1 and H2 are held on the shoulder straps 13 (Kim: Fig 1). ‘902-Kim-Ferguson combination fails to teach the refill hose is routed generally laterally along a first lateral section of the waist strap of the SCBA harness, with the refill hose not crossing the delivery hose or the high-pressure gauge hose at any point along the elongate length of the refill hose, delivery hose, and high-pressure gauge hose.
However, Wrigley, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a clip that attaches a flexible conduit onto a strap (Abstract) including a hose is routed generally laterally along a first lateral section of the waist strap of the SCBA harness, with the hose not crossing another hose at any point along the elongate length of the hose and other hose (70a and 70 shown to have different hoses next to each other and not crossing along the length, Fig 4; two identical clips 70, 70a are shown, fitted to the same strap, each holding a hose, the upper clip in the picture holds the hose on the left-hand side of the strap, while the other clip 70 holds its hose on the right, two hoses can be fitted to the same strap without getting in each other's way, paragraph 0024) to allow multiple hoses to be fitted onto the straps without getting in each other’s way (paragraph 0024) and reduce the risk of snapping by holding the conduit tightly against the strap (paragraph 0001).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add clips to hold the refill hose along the shoulder straps without allowing the hose to cross over other hoses, as taught by Wrigley, to allow multiple hoses to be fitted onto the straps without getting in each other’s way (Wrigley: paragraph 0024) and reduce the risk of snapping by holding the conduit tightly against the strap (Wrigley: paragraph 0001). This addition would ensure better organization of the hoses attached to the device and prevents the hoses from snagging. This is particularly useful when the refill hose is not in use and when the refill air source is not connected to the refill hose.
Regarding Claim 8, ‘902-Kim-Ferguson combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 7. ‘902-Kim-Ferguson combination also teaches the hoses H1 and H2 are held on the shoulder straps 13 (Kim: Fig 1). ‘902-Kim-Ferguson combination fails to teach the rescue-breathing hose is routed generally laterally along a second lateral section of the waist strap of the SCBA harness, which second, lateral section laterally opposes a first lateral section of the waist strap of the SCBA harness, with the rescue-breathing hose not crossing the delivery hose or the refill hose at any point along the elongate length of the rescue-breathing hose, delivery hose, and refill hose.
However, Wrigley, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a clip that attaches a flexible conduit onto a strap (Abstract) including a hose is routed generally laterally along a second lateral section of the waist strap of the SCBA harness, which second, lateral section laterally opposes a first lateral section of the waist strap of the SCBA harness (clips 70 shown to be used on both straps on both sides of the device, Fig 1), with the hose not crossing another hose at any point along the elongate length of the hose and other hose (70a and 70 shown to have different hoses next to each other and not crossing along the length, Fig 4; two identical clips 70, 70a are shown, fitted to the same strap, each holding a hose, the upper clip in the picture holds the hose on the left-hand side of the strap, while the other clip 70 holds its hose on the right, two hoses can be fitted to the same strap without getting in each other's way, paragraph 0024) to allow multiple hoses to be fitted onto the straps without getting in each other’s way (paragraph 0024) and reduce the risk of snapping by holding the conduit tightly against the strap (paragraph 0001).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add clips to hold the rescue breathing hose along the shoulder straps without allowing the hose to cross over other hoses, as taught by Wrigley, to allow multiple hoses to be fitted onto the straps without getting in each other’s way (Wrigley: paragraph 0024) and reduce the risk of snapping by holding the conduit tightly against the strap (Wrigley: paragraph 0001). This addition would ensure better organization of the hoses attached to the device and prevents the hoses from snagging. This can be useful particularly when the mask is not in use or the rescue breathing hose is not in use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN THAI-BINH KHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9:00 am-6:00 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, 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.
/BRIAN T KHONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
