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 Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-20 are objected to as not being in proper two-part format. Commas should be included to divide the preambles and bodies of the claims.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the flow-restricting constriction” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite “the at least one flow-restricting constriction” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “and that less” in line 4. This limitation should be amended to recite “and that is less”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the receptacle”. This limitation should be amended to recite “the air-inlet-fitting integral receptacle” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the metering piston” in lines 3 and 5. These limitations should be amended to recite “the spring-biased metering piston” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “by motion” in line 5. This limitation should be amended to recite “a motion” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “it” in line 12. The claim should be amended to remove the use of the pronoun “it” to avoid a potential lack of clarity.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the harness” in line 2. This limitation should be amended to recite “the SCBA harness” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the harness” in line 2. This limitation should be amended to recite “the SCBA harness” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the air tank” in lines 3, and 4. These limitations should be amended to recite “the at least one high-pressure air tank” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a user” in line 6. This limitation should be amended to recite “the user” as a user is recited in claim 14 from which claim 19 depends.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the air tank” in lines 1, 2, and 11. These limitations should be amended to recite “the at least one high-pressure air tank” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “upstreAm”. This limitation should be amended to remove the capital A from the term.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-11, and 13-20 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 recites the limitation “the form” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a form”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the process” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a process”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a high-pressure air tank” in line 5. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the tank recited in claim 6 is the same “high-pressure air tank” recited in claim 1, or a new tank. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as being the same tank.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a first air-delivery passage” in line 6. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the first air-delivery passage is the same “primary high-pressure air passage” recited in claim 1 or a new passage. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a second air-delivery passage” in line 2. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the second air-delivery passage is the same “secondary high-pressure air passage” recited in claim 1 or a new passage. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a primary air-delivery outlet” in line 7. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the primary air-delivery outlet is one of the “at least one air-delivery outlet” recited in claim 1 or a new outlet. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a secondary air-delivery outlet” in line 2. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the secondary air-delivery outlet is one of the “at least one air-delivery outlet” recited in claim 1 or a new outlet. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the entirety” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “an entirety”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “at least one high-pressure air tank” in line 4. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the at least one high-pressure air tank recited in claim 14 includes the high-pressure air tank recited in claim 1, or are new tanks. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a primary air-delivery outlet” in line 2. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the secondary air-delivery outlet is one of the “at least one air-delivery outlet” recited in claim 1 or a new outlet. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a secondary air-delivery outlet” in line 2. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the secondary air-delivery outlet is one of the “at least one air-delivery outlet” recited in claim 1 or a new outlet. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a harness-mounted high-pressure gauge” in line 5. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the harness-mounted high-pressure gauge is a new gauge or the same “high-pressure gauge of the SCBA” recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the pressure" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a pressure”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “An SCBA” in line 1. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the SCBA of claim 19 is a new SCBA or the same SCBA recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “at least one high-pressure air tank” in line 3. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the at least one high-pressure air tank recited in claim 19 includes the high-pressure air tank recited in claim 1, or are new tanks. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a high, tank pressure” in line 3. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the high, tank pressure recited in claim 19 includes the high, tank pressure recited in claim 1, or is a new pressure. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claims 7, 9, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on a rejected claim and thus, contain the same offending limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 12-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (WO 2019/045401 A2) (Examiner relies on a machine translation of Kim provided by Espacenet.com).
In regards to claim 1, Kim discloses a reducer (200; see [0085]; see figure 5) for a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) (portable air supply device; see [0085]; see figure 1), the reducer configured to receive air from a high-pressure air tank (1; see [0086]; see figure 1) at a high, tank pressure (see [0087]) through a high-pressure air inlet (211; see [0093]; see figure 7) of the reducer and to deliver the air through at least one air-delivery outlet (217; see [0094]; see figure 6) of the reducer at an outlet pressure that is lower than the high, tank pressure (see [0094]), the reducer comprising:
a metering assembly (220; see [0094]; see figure 8) that is fluidically connected to the high-pressure air inlet by a primary high-pressure air passage (left side of 213; see [0094]; see figure 6) and that is configured to accept high-pressure air from the high-pressure air passage and to meter the high-pressure air into an air-delivery pathway at the outlet pressure (see [0094]), the air-delivery pathway of the reducer being fluidically connected to the at least one air-delivery outlet so that the outlet-pressure air can be delivered to the at least one air-delivery outlet (see [0094]);
a secondary high-pressure air passage (right side of 213; see figure 6) that is fluidically connected to the high-pressure air inlet and to the primary high-pressure air passage and that is also fluidically connected to a high- pressure gauge air outlet (215; see [0094]; see figure 6) configured to allow the high-pressure air to reach a high-pressure gauge (500; see [0094]; see figure 13) of the SCBA;
an integrated pneumatic alerting device (230; see [0100]; see figure 10) with an upstream antechamber (chamber which comprises 233; see figure 9) to which the secondary high-pressure air passage is fluidically connected (see figure 6),
wherein the reducer comprises an integral refill air passage (passage which receives 240; see figure 12) with a first end that is fluidically connected to a refill air inlet (240; see [0092]; see figure 12) of the reducer and with a second, opposing end that is fluidically connected to the upstream antechamber of the integrated pneumatic alerting device (see figure 12).
In regards to claim 6, Kim discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim further discloses wherein the high-pressure air inlet of the reducer is defined at least in part by a high-pressure air inlet fitting (CL; see [0087]; see figure 7) that is fixedly inserted into an air-inlet-fitting integral receptacle (receptacle of 211 which receives portions of CL; see figure 7) of a main body (210; see [0093]; see figure 6) of the reducer, the receptacle defining an insertion axis (axis of 211; see figure 6) along which the high-pressure air inlet fitting of the reducer, and a fitting (portion of 1a which attached to CL; see figure 6) of a high-pressure air tank, can be moved relative to each other in the process of attaching the fitting of the high-pressure air tank and the high-pressure air inlet fitting of the reducer to each other (1a and CL can be moved relative to each other in the process of connecting 1a to CL).
In regards to claim 8, Kim discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim further discloses wherein the metering assembly of the reducer comprises a spring-biased metering piston (221 biased by S; see [0095]; see figure 8; 221 while described as a valve, comprises a head adjacent 222 and a rod which extends along S and thus, 221 is considered to be a piston) with an elongate length and a long axis (see figure 8), and further comprises an upstream plenum (see annotated figure 8 below) that is upstream of the metering piston, that is in fluidic communication with the primary high-pressure air passage in a manner that is interruptible by motion of the metering piston of the metering assembly, and that is in non- interruptible (see [0096] that 221 opens and closes the left side 213), direct fluidic communication with a first end of a first air-delivery passage (passage of 217; see [0096]; see figure 8) of the air-delivery pathway.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12, Kim discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim further discloses wherein the primary and secondary high-pressure air passages (left and right sides of 213) of the reducer, the air-delivery pathway (pathway of 217) of the reducer, the upstream antechamber of the integrated pneumatic alerting device (chamber which comprises 233 of 230) of the reducer, the integral refill air passage (passage which receives 240) of the reducer, and an upstream plenum (plenum as indicated in figure 8 above) of the metering assembly (220) of the reducer, are all integral features of the reducer (all the claimed features formed from 210 of 200 and thus, are integral features of the 200).
In regards to the limitation(s) of “formed by machining multiple cavities into a main body of the reducer along multiple linear machining directions”, these limitations are drawn to an article of manufacture, and therefore the limitation(s) is/are considered to be a product-by-process limitation that is given patentable weight only for the structural limitations imparted to the final product by the process, since it has been held that “(e)ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2113). In the instant case, the structures of the reducer of Kim are the same as the product in the product-by-process of claim 12. Thus, claim 12 is unpatentable.
In regards to claim 13, Kim discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim further discloses wherein the integral refill air passage (passage which receives 240) of the reducer and the upstream antechamber of the integrated pneumatic alerting device (chamber which comprises 233 of 230) of the reducer are arranged so that the entirety of an elongate length of the integral refill air passage of the reducer is line-of-sight visible through an opened upstream end of the upstream antechamber of the integrated pneumatic alerting device (see annotated figure 11 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
320
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 14, Kim discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim further discloses An SCBA harness (harness as seen in figure 1) comprising the reducer (200) of claim 1 (see figure 2), the SCBA harness comprising:
a backframe (11; see [0086]; see figure 2) with an upper end and a lower end, and an inward side (side seen in figure 1) and an outward side (side seen in figure 2), the backframe being configured to support at least one high-pressure air tank (1) on the outward side of the backframe (see figure 2);
a waist strap (14; see [0086]; see figure 1) connected to the backframe (see figure 1) and configured to encircle a user's waist and/or hip area; first and second shoulder straps (first and second 13; see [0086]; see figure 1) connected to the backframe (see figure 1) and configured to pass over a user's shoulders; and
a mask-mountable regulator (30; see [0088]; see figure 1) that is fluidically connected to the at least one air-delivery outlet (217) of the reducer by a delivery hose (h2; see [0088]; see figure 1) that is configured to receive air from the reducer at the outlet pressure and to deliver it to the mask-mountable regulator (see [0088]).
In regards to claim 15, Kim discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim further discloses wherein the air-delivery pathway of the reducer comprises a primary air-delivery outlet (217); and, wherein the delivery hose (h2) comprises a first end with a fitting (end of h2 which fits into 217; see figure 6) that is fixedly inserted into the primary air-delivery outlet of the reducer (see figure 6), and a second, opposing end that is fluidically connected to the mask-mountable regulator (see figure 1), so as to fluidically connect the primary air-delivery outlet of the reducer to the mask-mountable regulator (See [0088]).
In regards to claim 18, Kim discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim further discloses wherein the harness further comprises a high-pressure gauge hose (h1; see [0087]; see figure 1) with a first end comprising a fitting (end of h1 which fits into 215; see figure 6) that is fixedly inserted in the high-pressure gauge air outlet (215) of the reducer to fluidically connect the first end of the high-pressure gauge hose to the high-pressure gauge air outlet of the reducer, and with a second, opposing end to which is fluidically connected a harness-mounted high-pressure gauge (500; see [0090]) that is configured to monitor and report the pressure of the high-pressure air (see [0090]).
In regards to claim 19, Kim discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim further discloses An SCBA (portable air device) comprising the SCBA harness (harness) of claim 14 (see discussion above), the SCBA further comprising:
at least one high-pressure air tank (1) filled with breathing air at a high, tank pressure (see [0087]), the air tank being secured to the backframe of the SCBA harness (see figure 2) and a high-pressure air outlet (1a; see [0087]; see figure 2) of the air tank being fluidically connected to the high-pressure air inlet (211; see [0087])) of the reducer; and,
a facemask (40; see [0088]; see figure 1) configured to be worn by a user, the facemask defining an interior region adjacent the user's face when the facemask is donned by the user (see figure 18 that 40 defines an interior region as claimed),
wherein the mask-mountable regulator (30) is mounted on the facemask (see figure 1) and is configured to receive air from the delivery hose (h2; see [0088]) 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 (see [0088]).
In regards to claim 20, Kim discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim further discloses A method of refilling the air tank (1) of the SCBA (portable air device) of claim 19 (see discussion above) with the air tank mounted in place on the backframe of the SCBA and fluidically connected to the reducer of the SCBA, the method comprising:
fluidically connecting a second fitting (end of 1a which fits onto 240; see figure 12) of a refill hose (supply hose; see [0111]) of the SCBA to an outside source of refill air (another air tank; see [0111]) and injecting refill air from the outside source into the second fitting of the refill hose, so that the refill air travels through the refill hose (supply hose), into the refill air inlet (240) of the reducer, through the integral refill air passage (passage which receives 240) of the reducer, through the upstream antechamber (chamber which comprises 233) of the integrated pneumatic alerting device (230) of the reducer, and through the secondary high-pressure air passage (right side of 213) of the reducer, to reach the high-pressure air inlet (211) of the reducer, and wherein the refill air exits the high-pressure air inlet (211) of the reducer through a connecting assembly (CL) that allows the refill air to enter the air tank (see [0111-0112] air from the refilling supply travels through 240 and associated passages, into the right side of 213 (and thus, into the chamber which comprises 233 which is coupled thereto), and out of 211 to enter into, and refill the connected tank).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Patriksson (US 2013/0066227 A1).
In regards to claim 2, Kim discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim does not disclose wherein the secondary high-pressure air passage comprises at least one flow-restricting constriction located between the upstream antechamber of the integrated pneumatic alerting device and the high-pressure air inlet, the flow-restricting constriction comprising a diameter that is between 0.3 mm and 0.7 mm and that is between 20 and 30 % of an average diameter of the secondary high-pressure air passage.
However, Patriksson teaches an analogous reducer (80 and associated regulator; see [0028-0029]; see figure 2) for a self-contained breathing apparatus (apparatus is for use with SCUBA; see [0002] and [0005]) comprising an analogous air inlet (RV; see [0031]; see figure 3a), air-passage (passages seen in figure 3a), and outlet (L1B; see [0058]; see figure 3a); further wherein the air passage comprises at least one flow-restricting constriction (130; see [0031]; see figure 3a) for the purpose of providing a means which maintains a higher pressure on one side of the device in response to a breathing event which causes a pressure drop on the other side of the device (see [0033]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the secondary high-pressure air passage as disclosed by Kim and to have included the flow restricting constriction as taught by Patriksson in order to have provided an improved reducer that would add the benefit of providing a means for which maintains a higher pressure on one side of the device in response to a breathing event which causes a pressure drop on the other side of the device (see [0033]).
With respect to the positioning of at least one flow-restricting constriction located between the upstream antechamber of the integrated pneumatic alerting device and the high-pressure air inlet.
Kim further discloses the integrated pneumatic alerting device (230) utilizes a high-pressure port (23a; see [0101]; see figure 9) and a pressure reduction port (23b; see [0101]; see figure 9) and functions such that when the high-pressure air from the air tank received through 23a diminishes, the valve (233) located within the upstream antechamber (chamber which houses 233) actuates, allowing for depressurized air to flow through 23b generating the whistle alarm (see [0103-0105]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the at least one flow-restricting constriction which is utilized for the purpose of maintaining a higher pressure on one side of the device in response to a breathing event which causes a pressure drop on the other side of the device (see [0033]) as taught by Patriksson within the secondary high-pressure air passage between the pressure reduction port of the upstream antechamber and the high-pressure air inlet (i.e. to the left of 23a as seen in figure 9) as disclosed by Kim to ensure that a breathing event of the user does not cause a sufficient pressure drop at the location of the high-pressure port consequently causing the valve to prematurely actuate, causing the integrated pneumatic alerting device to generate a false alarm.
Kim as now modified by Patriksson does not explicitly disclose the flow-restricting constriction comprising a diameter that is between 0.3 mm and 0.7 mm and that is between 20 and 30% of an average diameter of the secondary high-pressure air passage.
However, Patriksson teaches “In order to establish a sufficient difference in pressure between the two chambers 120, 121 the reduction of through passage area Ar in connection with the lower pressure chamber 121 need to be in the magnitude of about 1/100 in relation to the area Af of the flow passage 153 to the upper chamber 120. At least there is a need of a relation between 1/50 to 1/200 (see [0061]). Thus, the diameter of the flow-restricting constriction, and the ratio of the flow-restricting constriction diameter with respect to the secondary high-pressure air passage diameter is considered to be a result effective variable in that changing the diameter of the flow-restricting constriction, and the ratio of the flow-restricting constriction diameter with respect to the secondary high-pressure air passage diameter affects the ability of the flow-restricting constriction to establish a sufficient difference in pressure between the two chambers (see [0061]). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the diameter of the flow-restricting constriction of Kim as now modified by Patriksson as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of the flow-restricting constriction of Kim as now modified by Patriksson by forming the diameter of the flow-restricting constriction from the claimed values and ratio with respect to the secondary high-pressure air passage as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). Such a modification would add the benefit of ensuring a sufficient difference in pressure between the primary and secondary high-pressure air passages is established.
Further such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A). In the instant case, the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device and the device of Kim as now modified by Patriksson having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently. Additionally Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed ranges stating on page 12 of their Specification that “the diameter of a constriction 118 may be less than 45, 40, 35% of the average diameter of section 117. In further embodiments, the diameter may be greater than 5, 10, 15% of the average diameter of section 117. In some embodiments, the diameter of a constriction 118 may be at most 1.5, 1.0, 0.8mm; in further embodiments, the diameter of a constriction 118 may be at least 0.2mm” thereby establishing the specific claimed ranges are not critical to the functionality of their device, and can have dimensions outside of the claimed ranges.
In regards to claim 3, Kim as now modified by Patriksson discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim as now modified by Patriksson further discloses wherein the at least one flow-restricting constriction (130 of Patriksson) is in the form of exactly one integral flow-restricting constriction (130 of Patriksson included into 200 of Kim is one structure and when included, would be integral to 200 both functionally and structurally) that is located proximate to, and is directly fluidically connected to, the upstream antechamber of the integrated pneumatic alerting device (see discussion above that 130 of Patriksson would be placed proximate to the chamber of Kim which comprises 233 and thus, is positioned as claimed).
In regards to claim 4, Kim discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim does not disclose wherein a flow-resisting constriction is provided between the high-pressure gauge air outlet and the secondary high-pressure air passage, the flow- resisting constriction being provided by a non-integral orifice plate having a through-hole comprising a diameter that is between 0.4 mm and .01 mm and that less than 20 % of an average diameter of the secondary high-pressure air passage.
However, Patriksson teaches an analogous reducer (80 and associated regulator; see [0028-0029]; see figure 2) for a self-contained breathing apparatus (apparatus is for use with SCUBA; see [0002] and [0005]) comprising an analogous air inlet (RV; see [0031]; see figure 3a), air-passage (passages seen in figure 3a), and outlet (L1B; see [0058]; see figure 3a); further comprising a flow-resisting constriction (130; see [0031]; see figure 3a), the flow-resisting constriction being provided by a non-integral orifice plate (see figure 3c) having a through-hole (143; see [0031]; see figure 3c) comprising a diameter that is between 0.4 mm and .01 mm (.2mm; see [0061]) and that less than 20 % of an average diameter of the air passage (air passage has a diameter of 2mm (see [0061]); thus, 143 comprises a diameter which is 10% of the air passage diameter) for the purpose of providing a means which maintains a higher pressure on one side of the device in response to a breathing event which causes a pressure drop on the other side of the device (see [0033]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the secondary high-pressure air passage as disclosed by Kim and to have included the flow restricting constriction as taught by Patriksson in order to have provided an improved reducer that would add the benefit of providing a means for which maintains a higher pressure on one side of the device in response to a breathing event which causes a pressure drop on the other side of the device (see [0033]).
With respect to the positioning of the flow-resisting constriction is provided between the high-pressure gauge air outlet and the secondary high-pressure air passage
Kim further discloses the integrated pneumatic alerting device (230) utilizes a high-pressure port (23a; see [0101]; see figure 9) and a pressure reduction port (23b; see [0101]; see figure 9) and functions such that when the high-pressure air from the air tank received through 23a diminishes, the valve (233) located within the upstream antechamber (chamber which houses 233) actuates, allowing for depressurized air to flow through 23b generating the whistle alarm (see [0103-0105]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the at least one flow-restricting constriction which is utilized for the purpose of maintaining a higher pressure on one side of the device in response to a breathing event which causes a pressure drop on the other side of the device (see [0033]) as taught by Patriksson within the secondary high-pressure air passage between the pressure reduction port of the upstream antechamber and the high-pressure gauge air outlet (i.e. to the left of 23a as seen in figure 9) as disclosed by Kim to ensure that a breathing event of the user does not cause a sufficient pressure drop at the location of the high-pressure port consequently causing the valve to prematurely actuate, causing the integrated pneumatic alerting device to generate a false alarm.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hansen (US 2019/0091497 A1).
In regards to claim 5, Kim discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim further discloses wherein a portion of the secondary high-pressure air passage (right side of 213) that is proximate the upstream antechamber (chamber which comprises 233) of the integrated pneumatic alerting device (230) is elongate with a long axis (see figure 6), wherein the integral refill air passage (passage which receives 240) is elongate with a long axis (see figure 6), wherein the long axis of the integral refill air passage is oriented at an angle relative to the long axis of the portion of the secondary high-pressure air passage that is proximate the upstream antechamber of the integrated pneumatic alerting device (see figure 6 that the long axes of 213 and the passage which receives 240 are parallel to one another or oriented at an angle of 180 degrees with respect to one another).
Kim does not disclose wherein the long axis of the integral refill air passage is oriented relative to the long axis of the portion of the secondary high-pressure air passage at an angle of from 20 degrees to 70 degrees.
However, Hansen teaches an analogous reducer (100; see [0024]; see figure 2; 100 comprises 170 which is used for reducing or regulating air delivered to a user (see [0025])) comprising an analogous secondary high-pressure passage (113; see [0025]; see figure 6) and an analogous integral refill air passage (115; see [0025]; see figure 7) each comprising a long axis (see figures 6 and 7); wherein the long axis of the integral refill air passage is oriented relative to the long axis of the portion of the secondary high-pressure air passage at an angle of from 20 degrees to 70 degrees (see figure 7a that the long axis of 115 is roughly positioned at an angle of 45 degrees with respect to the long axis of 113) for the purpose of allowing easy connection of a high pressure air supply without interfering with additional equipment that may be carried on the operator's back (see [0030]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the orientation of the integral refill air passage with respect to the secondary high-pressure air passage as disclosed by Kim and to have oriented the long axis of the integral refill air passage at an angle of roughly 45 degrees with respect to the secondary high-pressure air passage as taught by Hansen in order to have provided an improved integral refill air passage that would add the benefit of allowing easy connection of a high pressure air supply without interfering with additional equipment that may be carried on the operator's back (see [0030]).
In regards to claim 9, Kim discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim further discloses wherein the first air-delivery passage (passage of 217) of the air-delivery pathway comprises an elongate length and exhibits a long axis (see figure 6), and wherein the long axis of the first air-delivery passage of the air-delivery pathway is oriented at a first angle relative to the long axis of the metering piston of the metering assembly of the reducer (see figure 6 that the long axis of the passage of 217 is oriented at an angle of 90 degrees relative to the long axis of 221).
Kim does not disclose the angle is between 55 and 75 degrees.
However, Hansen teaches an analogous reducer (100; see [0024]; see figure 2; 100 comprises 170 which is used for reducing or regulating air delivered to a user (see [0025])) comprising an analogous first-air delivery passage (180; see [0024]; see figure 3) which comprises a long axis (see figure 3) and an analogous metering piston (172; see [0026]; see figure 6) of a metering assembly (170; see [0024]; see figure 3) which comprises a long axis (see figure 6); wherein the long axis of the first air-delivery passage (180) of the air-delivery pathway is oriented at a first angle between 55 and 75 degrees relative to the long axis of the metering piston (172) of the metering assembly (170) of the reducer (see annotated figure 6 below) for the purpose of allowing easy access to an operator when reaching around their body to control the manifold system, without requiring the operator to remove the system from their back to turn the system on and off (see [0026]).
PNG
media_image3.png
318
378
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the orientation of the metering piston of the metering assembly with respect to the first air delivery passage as disclosed by Kim and to have oriented the long axis of the integral refill air passage at an angle of roughly 55 degrees with respect to each other as taught by Hansen in order to have provided an improved metering assembly that would add the benefit of allowing easy access to an operator when reaching around their body to control the manifold system, without requiring the operator to remove the system from their back to turn the system on and off (see [0026]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Mele (US 2016/0082295 A1).
In regards to claim 7, Kim discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim further discloses disclose wherein the high-pressure air inlet fitting (CL) of the reducer is a push-pull quick-connect fitting configured so that with the high-pressure air inlet fitting of the reducer attached to the fitting of the high-pressure air tank (portion of 1a; 1a is seen to be inserted within CL an action which requires “pushing”, and can be removed from CL via pulling both of which can be completed quickly and thus, CL is considered to be a push-pull quick-connect fitting as claimed)
Kim does not disclose the quick-connect fitting and the fitting of the high-pressure air tank can be moved toward each other with a movable portion of the quick-connect fitting then being retracted from a non-movable portion of the quick-connect fitting in a direction away from the fitting of the high-pressure tank, after which the quick-connect fitting and the fitting of the high-pressure tank can be detached from each other.
However, Mele teaches an analogous SCBA (10; see [0060]; see figure 1) comprising a high-pressure air inlet fitting (190; see [0071]; see figure 16) which is a quick-connect fitting (See title) for receiving a fitting of a high-pressure air tank (93 of 22; see [0062] and [0069]; see figure 9); the quick-connect fitting (190) and the fitting of the high-pressure air tank (93 of 22) can be moved toward each other with a movable portion (192 and 193; see [0076]; see figure 16) of the quick-connect fitting then being retracted from a non-movable portion (194; see [0076]; see figure 16) of the quick-connect fitting in a direction away from the fitting of the high-pressure tank (192 and 193), after which the quick-connect fitting and the fitting of the high-pressure tank can be detached from each other (see [0091]) for the purpose of providing a means for quickly and reliably connecting a cylinder fitting (valve) to a pressure reducer (see [0003]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the high-pressure air inlet fitting of the reducer as disclosed by Kim and to have included the quick-connect latching mechanism as taught by Mele in order to have provided an improved high-pressure air inlet fitting of the reducer that would add the benefit of means for quickly and reliably connecting a cylinder fitting (valve) to a pressure reducer (see [0003]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Mattingly.
In regards to claim 16, Kim discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim does not disclose wherein the air-delivery pathway of the reducer further comprises a secondary air-delivery outlet; and, wherein the SCBA harness comprises a rescue-breathing hose or an airline hose, with a first end comprising a first fitting that is fixedly inserted in the secondary air-delivery outlet and a second end comprising a second fitting that is configured to be fluidically connected to a fitting of a donee SCBA or to be fluidically connected to a fitting of an air-supplying umbilical.
However, Mattingly teaches an analogous SCBA harness (16; see [col 2 ln 60]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous reducer (14; see [col 2 ln 54]; see figure 1) and an analogous air-delivery pathway (pathway through which air passes through 14); wherein the air-delivery pathway of the reducer further comprises a secondary air-delivery outlet (36; see [col 4 ln 45]; see figure 4); and, wherein the SCBA harness (10) comprises a rescue-breathing hose (17 attached to 36; see figure 2) or an airline hose, with a first end comprising a first fitting that is fixedly inserted in the secondary air-delivery outlet (see figure 2) and a second end comprising a second fitting (30; see [col 3 ln 65]; see figure 2) that is configured to be fluidically connected to a fitting of a donee SCBA (see figure 2) or to be fluidically connected to a fitting of an air-supplying umbilical for the purpose of providing a means for which the primary user of the SCBA may quickly and safely attach their SCBA to a distressed secondary user’s SCBA (see [col 4 ln 26-33]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the SCBA harness as disclosed by Kim and to have included the rescue breathing hose configured to be attached to a donee SCBA as taught by Mattingly in order to have provided an improved SCBA harness that would add the benefit of providing a means for which the primary user of the SCBA may quickly and safely attach their SCBA to a distressed secondary user’s SCBA (see [col 4 ln 26-33]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Philips (US 3,791,406 A).
In regards to claim 16, Kim discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kim further discloses wherein the harness (harness) further comprises a refill hose (supply hose; see [0111]) with a first end (end seen in figure 12) comprising a first fitting that is fixedly inserted on the refill air inlet (240; see figure 12) of the reducer to fluidically connect the first end of the refill hose to the refill air inlet of the reducer (see figure 12), and with a second, opposing end (end attached to another air tank; see [0111]) comprising a second fitting (end attached to that is configured to be removably fluidically connected to an outside source of refill air (another air tank; see [0111]; the supply hose is capable of being removably fluidically connected to the other air tank).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the refill hose is fixedly inserted in the refill air inlet.
However, Kim does disclose the insertion of a hose (1a) into the high-pressure air inlet fitting (see figure 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reducer as disclosed by Kim and to have substituted the connection of the refill hose which is positioned on the refill air inlet for the connection in which the hose is inserted in the air inlet as taught by the connection of the high-pressure air inlet fitting and the air outlet of the high-pressure air tank in order to have provided an improved connection of the refill hose and refill air inlet that would add the benefit of providing a known and conventional coupling mechanism (see [0092]).
Furthermore, such a modification is held to be obvious since it has been held that “(w)here a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (see MPEP 2143 I B). Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results. In the instant case a substitution of the connection of the refill hose which is positioned on the refill air inlet for the connection in which the hose is inserted in the air inlet as taught by the connection of the high-pressure air inlet fitting and the air outlet of the high-pressure air tank provides the predictable results of connecting a hose to the reducer.
Kim still does not disclose wherein 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, Philips teaches an analogous refill hose (10; see [col 1 ln 45]; see figure 1) which is utilized for the analogous purpose of refilling (charging) pressurized has systems (see [col 1 ln 38-44]); wherein the first fitting (13; see [col 1 ln 50]; see figure 1) of the refill hose comprises a one-way valve (check valve; see [col 1 ln 50]; see figure 4) that allows flow of refill air into the refill air inlet, but does not allow air to exit out of the refill air inlet (see [col 1 ln 4-9]) for the purpose of preventing reverse pressurized flow of the refilling gas through the hose (see [col 1 ln 4-9]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first fitting of the refill hose as disclosed by Kim and to have included the check valve of the first fitting of the refill hose as taught by Philips in order to have provided an improved refill hose that would add the benefit of providing a means for preventing reverse pressurized flow of the refilling gas through the hose (see [col 1 ln 4-9]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and 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: the subject matter of claim 10 not disclosed either singly or in combination is that of “wherein the air-delivery pathway comprises a second air-delivery passage with a first end that is directly fluidically connected to the first air- delivery passage of the air-delivery pathway and meets the first air-delivery passage at a second angle that is within plus or minus 10 degrees of the first angle so that a long axis of the second air-delivery passage is aligned within plus or minus 10 degrees of the long axis of the metering piston of the metering assembly of the reducer”. No art could be found in the examiner’s search of relevant CPC areas which reasonably disclosed such a configuration of a first and second air delivery passage, where the long axis of the second air-delivery passage is aligned within plus or minus 10 degrees of the long axis of the metering piston of the metering assembly of the reducer. It is for at least this reason that claim 10 is considered to be free from art.
Claim 11 is considered free from art insofar as the claim depends from claim 10 and thus, contains the same limitations not found in the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 571-270-3076. 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.
/DANIEL A MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights