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 of the following informalities:
In fig. 12, the reference number “16” is shown two times. It is suggested for one of them to be deleted.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “21a,b” in fig. 6; “38” in fig. 6 and fig. 12.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3: “housing having” should read --the housing having--.
In each of claims 2 – 5, 7 – 11 and 13 – 15, line 1: “claim 1” should read --claim 1,--.
Claim 6, line 1: “claim 5 further including” should read --claim 5, further including--.
Claim 12, line 1: “claim 11” should read --claim 11,--.
Claim 13, line 1: “wherein gasket has a width” should read --wherein the waterproof gasket has a width--.
Claim 16, line 1: “comprising” should read --comprising:--.
Claim 16, line 13: “the waterproof gasket” should read --
Claim 17, line 1: “The system of claim 16” should read --The method of claim 16,--.
Claim 17, line 1: “The system” should read --The method--.
Claim 18, line 11: “the waterproof gasket” should read --
In each of claims 19 and 20, line 1: “The system of claim 18” should read --The method of claim 18,--.
Claims 2 – 15 are objected to for being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 17 is objected to for being dependent on claim 16.
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to for being dependent on claim 18.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7 – 10, 14 and 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, Ching Chi (US 6,492,590 – herein after Cheng) in view of Conrad, Wayne (US 2005/0268833 – herein after Conrad) further in view of Hatasaki et al. (JPS 59108884A – herein after Hatasaki), Huang et al. (US 2022/0065257 – herein after Huang) and Chung, Tsai Chun (US 7,588,425 – herein after Chung).
In reference to claim 1, Cheng teaches a system comprising:
an air pump station (“air pump” in this limitation is considered to be an intended use of the station) having (see figs. 14-15) a frame (62), a front panel (20), an intermediate gasket (40), and a housing (10), the housing having an outwardly extending housing flange (12) around a periphery of the housing (as seen figs. 14-15);
a water-tight seal formed by connection of the frame (62), the front panel (20), the intermediate gasket (40), and the outwardly extending housing flange (12) of the housing (10), the water-tight seal preventing water ingress into the air pump station (inherent feature; see col. 1, lines 6-9).
Cheng remains silent on the system being an “air pump” system permanently installed in a recreational vehicle.
However, Conrad teaches (see ¶210, ¶212) an electric air pump permanently attached to the vessel/craft for inflating and deflating desired objects.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide electric air pump as taught by Conrad in the liquid proof station taught by Cheng for permanently installing the pump in a recreational vehicle to allows a user to inflate and deflate desired objects without worrying about any liquid damage to the electric air pump.
Cheng, as modified by Conrad, teaches the air pump system permanently installed in a recreation vehicle, comprising: an air pump (of Conrad) residing in the housing (of Cheng), the air pump having working components and circuitry for generating airflow and suction (inherent feature: air pump inherently has pumping element and valves to generate the airflow and suction as well as circuitry that controls the operation of the electric actuator that provides power to the pumping element).
Cheng, as modified by Conrad, remains silent on the system comprising: “an outflow airflow connection of the air pump extending from within the housing and being exposed at a first opening in the front panel”; “an inflow airflow connection of the air pump extending from within the housing and being exposed at a second opening in the front panel”; and “a waterproof door”.
However, Hatasaki teaches an air pump comprising: an outflow airflow connection (9), the outflow airflow connection (9) outputs air for inflating an inflatable device; and an inflow airflow connection (8), the inflow airflow connection (8) intakes air from an inflated device for deflating said inflated device.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute Conrad’s electric air pump in the modified air pump system of Cheng for the liquid tight air pump having outflow airflow connection and inflow airflow connection as taught by Hatasaki in order to obtain a predictable result of allowing a user to inflate and deflate desired objects without worrying any liquid damage to the electric air pump. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Furthermore, since Hatasaki’s air pump is liquid tight (see ¶1 of translation), the use of such pump in the modified air pump system of Cheng further enhances fluid-tight sealing in the system.
With respect to the limitations, the outflow airflow connection of the air pump extending from within the housing and being exposed at a first opening in the front panel and the inflow airflow connection of the air pump extending from within the housing and being exposed at a second opening in the front panel: Since Hatasaki’s air pump is being provided in Cheng’s housing, it would be have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to extend Hatasaki’s outflow airflow connection from within the Cheng’s housing for being exposed at a first opening in the Cheng’s front panel and to extend Hatasaki’s inflow airflow connection from within the Cheng’s housing for being exposed at a second opening in the Cheng’s front panel in the modified system of Cheng as a matter of design choice for providing the user with accessible points to attach hoses for both inflation and deflation.
Cheng, as modified, remains silent on the system comprising: a waterproof door residing on the front panel covering the outflow and inflow airflow connections and providing a watertight seal with a surface of the front panel to prevent water ingress into said outflow and inflow airflow connections.
However, Huang teaches an air pump system comprising: a waterproof door (32; see figs. 2-3 and ¶25) residing on the front panel (31) covering airflow connections and providing (in view of O-ring 35) a watertight seal with a surface of the front panel to prevent water ingress into said connections.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a waterproof door as taught by Huang on Cheng’s front panel in the modified air pump system of Cheng for the purpose of protecting the pump components (inflow and outflow airflow connections in this case), in hermetically sealed manner, from surrounding environment when the pump is not being used.
Cheng, as modified, teaches the system comprising: a mounting surface of a moving vessel (in Conrad’s moving vessel; mounting surface for the permanently installed air pump being an inherent feature).
Cheng, as modified, remains silent on the system comprising: an opening in the mounting surface of a moving vessel, the opening being sized and configured to fit the housing; and a waterproof gasket residing at a backside of the housing, the housing extends through the opening in the mounting surface while the frame, front panel, intermediate gasket, housing flange, and waterproof gasket all reside above the mounting surface around said opening and are secured to the mounting surface to provide a water-tight seal around housing flange over the mounting surface.
However, Chung teaches an air pump system, comprising: an opening in a mounting surface (of object 18, see fig. 1), the opening being sized and configured to fit the housing (30+32); a waterproof gasket (39, see fig. 2A and col. 3, lines 19-26) residing at a backside of the housing (backside of the housing = location below flange of housing 30+32), the housing extends through the opening in the mounting surface while (in view of figs. 1, 2A-2C) the front panel (34), housing flange (38), and waterproof gasket (39) all reside above the mounting surface around said opening and are secured to the mounting surface to provide a water-tight seal around housing flange over the mounting surface.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a waterproof gasket as taught by Chung for the Cheng’s housing flange in the modified air pump system of Cheng for the purpose of using Chung’s mounting technique to mount the modified air pump system of Cheng into a vessel wall in airtight sealed manner. Placing the frame and gaskets above the mounting surface provides a structural seal over the flange, ensuring the cutout in the moving vessel remains water-tight.
Thus, Cheng, as modified, teaches the system, comprising a waterproof gasket (of Chung) residing at a backside of the housing (of Cheng), the housing extends through the opening in the mounting surface (in Conrad’s moving vessel) while the frame (of Cheng), front panel (of Cheng), intermediate gasket (of Cheng), housing flange (of Cheng), and waterproof gasket (of Chung) all reside above the mounting surface around said opening and are secured to the mounting surface to provide a water-tight seal around housing flange over the mounting surface.
In reference to claim 2, Cheng, as modified, teaches the system, wherein the housing (10; of Cheng) comprises a tub-shaped housing (as evident from fig. 14 of Cheng).
In reference to claim 3, Cheng, as modified, teaches the system, wherein the frame (62; of Cheng) comprises a one-piece frame (“one-piece” being evident from Cheng’s fig. 14 or fig. 15) entirely surrounding a perimeter (perimeter of slot 292; in Cheng’s fig. 15) of the front panel (20; of Cheng).
In reference to claim 5, Cheng, as modified, teaches the system, wherein the frame (of Cheng), the front panel (of Cheng), the intermediate gasket (of Cheng), and the outwardly extending housing flange (of Cheng) of the housing (of Cheng) are all correspondingly sized and configured to provide the water-tight seal.
In reference to claim 7, Cheng, as modified, teaches the system, further including (see figs. 14-15 of Cheng) an adapter (19’) at the back of the housing (10).
With respect to the limitation “for connecting the air pump to a power source”, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the Cheng’s adapter in the modified system of Cheng for connecting Hatasaki’s air pump to a power source in order to charge the recharge the batteries in event rechargeable batteries are utilized in Hatasaki’s air pump.
In reference to claim 8, Cheng, as modified, teaches the system, wherein the outflow airflow connection (9; of Hatasaki) and the inflow airflow connection (8; of Hatasaki) are adaptable to be fitted with a variety of different hoses and connectors for connection to the inflatable device.
In reference to claim 9, Cheng, as modified, teaches the system, wherein the waterproof door (32; of Huang) includes one or more seals (35; of Huang) at least on an outer periphery edge (outer circumferential periphery edge) to provide said watertight seal.
In reference to claim 10, Cheng, as modified, teaches the system, wherein the waterproof door (32; of Huang) includes one or more hinges (as evident from figs. 6-7 of Huang) to ensure the waterproof door is closed when not in use, and preventing water from entering to the air pump inside the housing.
In reference to claim 14, Cheng, as modified, teaches the system, wherein the moving vessel (of Conrad) is a boat (see Conrad’s fig. 1a).
In reference to claims 16 and 17, see rejection of claims 1 and 14 above. These are method claims. The newly modified inflatable device of Cheng as above does not explicitly teach the claimed method; however, the modified inflatable device of Cheng does teach all the structural limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 14. Therefore, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the process or method claimed, then the process or method claimed will be considered to be obvious by the prior art device. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02(I).
In reference to claims 18 and 19, see rejection of claims 1, 8 and 14 above. These are method claims. The newly modified inflatable device of Cheng as above does not explicitly teach the claimed method; however, the modified inflatable device of Cheng does teach all the structural limitations as set forth in claims 1, 8 and 14. Therefore, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the process or method claimed, then the process or method claimed will be considered to be obvious by the prior art device. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02(I).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Cheng in view of Conrad further in view of Hatasaki, Huang, Chung and Weston, Sharon (US 6,222,090 – herein after Weston).
Cheng, as modified, teaches the system, wherein (see figs. 14-15 of Cheng) screws (bolts 50 in holes 27; see figs. 14-15 of Cheng) residing in said top and bottom of the front panel (20; of Cheng) that secure the air pump station together.
Cheng, as modified, remains silent on the system, wherein the frame comprises a top frame strip and a bottom frame strip, respectively, attached to the top and the bottom of the front panel and covering residing in said top and bottom of the front panel that secure the air pump station together.
However, Weston teaches (see col. 4, lines 10-12) “a cover or shield for an area .. in need of protection against water or moisture”. The cover or shield (1/2/3/4; see figs. 1-4) is considered to be a strip that can be attached on a surface that needs protection against water or moisture.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the strips as taught by Weston that acts as frame for covering the fasteners on Cheng’s front panel in the modified system of Cheng for the purpose of enhancing the protection against water or moisture.
Thus, Cheng, as modified, teaches the system, wherein (see figs. 14-15 of Cheng) the frame comprises a top frame strip (strip of Weston corresponding to top fastener 50) and a bottom frame strip (strip of Weston corresponding to bottom fastener 50), respectively, attached to a top and a bottom of the front panel (20; of Cheng) and covering screws (bolts 50 in holes 27; see figs. 14-15 of Cheng) residing in said top and bottom of the front panel that secure the air pump station together.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Cheng in view of Conrad further in view of Hatasaki, Huang, Chung and Verbridge, Mason (US 2022/0003308 – herein after Verbridge).
Regarding claim 6,
Cheng, as modified, remains silent on the system, further including a waterproof sealant between one or more of the frame (of Cheng), the front panel (of Cheng), the intermediate gasket (of Cheng), and the outwardly extending housing flange (of Cheng) to enhance the water-tight seal.
However, Verbridge teaches (see ¶16) “interfaces between housings may include a sealant, a gasket, an O-ring, a crush seal, any other suitable seal, or any combination thereof”.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a waterproof sealant as taught by Verbridge between one or more of the frame, the front panel, the intermediate gasket, and the outwardly extending housing flange in the modified system of Cheng for the purpose of enhancing the water-tight seal.
Regarding claim 13,
Cheng, as modified, teaches the system, wherein the waterproof gasket (of Chung) has a width comparable to extension of the outwardly extending housing flange (of Cheng).
Cheng, as modified, remains silent on the system, wherein the waterproof gasket is provided with a waterproof adhesive to provide said water-tight seal around housing flange over the mounting surface.
However, Verbridge teaches (see ¶16) “interfaces between housings may include a sealant, a gasket, an O-ring, a crush seal, any other suitable seal, or any combination thereof”.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Chung’s waterproof gasket in the modified system of Cheng with a waterproof sealant as taught by Verbridge for the purpose of enhancing the water-tight seal.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Cheng in view of Conrad further in view of Hatasaki, Huang, Chung and Huang et al. (US 2020/0200180– herein after Huang II).
Regarding claim 11,
Cheng, as modified, remains silent on the system, further including a pressure readout screen on the front panel.
However, Huang II teaches an air pump system, further including (see ¶26-¶28 and figs. 1-2) a pressure readout screen (“display screen” for controller 100) on the front panel.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a pressure readout screen as taught by Huang II on the front panel in the modified system of Cheng for the purpose of allowing the user to visually see the pressure values, as recognized by Huang II (see ¶28).
Regarding claim 12,
Cheng, as modified, teaches the system, further including one or more push buttons (12; of Hatasaki and panel input unit 108; of Huang II) on the front panel (of Cheng) for turning the air pump on and off (see ¶1 of translation of Hatasaki), and for setting and controlling air pumping pressures (see ¶26-¶28 and figs. 1-2; of Huang II).
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Cheng in view of Conrad further in view of Hatasaki, Huang, Chung and Kim et al. (US 5,730,177 – herein after Kim).
Cheng, as modified, does not teach the system, wherein the moving vessel is a land recreational vehicle.
However, Kim teaches an air pump system (11) in a moving vessel wherein the moving vessel is a land recreation vehicle (car).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to mount the modified system of Cheng in a land recreational vehicle as taught by Kim for the purpose of allowing the user to inflate and deflate desired objects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746