DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant’s cited CN 112353597 (hereinafter Yue) in view of applicant’s cited JP 3015562 (hereinafter Furuya).
Regarding claim 1, Yue (FIGs 1-3) discloses “An air supply device that supplies air to an air bag (inflatable cushion at tops of 3-8, specifically labeled as 20, 23, 30, 33, 36, 39, seen to each read as an “air bag”), the air supply device comprising:
a pump (9) that delivers air;
a connecting flow channel (path from 9 to each of 3-8) that connects the pump to the air bag…”
Yue is silent regarding “a pressure reducing joint that reduces pressure of air supplied from the pump to the air bag,
wherein the pressure reducing joint includes an internal flow channel constituting a part of the connecting flow channel, and an exhaust flow channel that constantly connects the internal flow channel to an atmosphere and discharges a part of air flowing through the internal flow channel to the atmosphere.”
However, Furuya (FIGs 1-5) teaches a pressurized air supply circuit (analogous to Yue) with a pressure reducing joint 50, 20, formed in the system channel the joint having an internal flow channel 24 and an exhaust flow channel 26, 52, 53, such that air can leave the joint via the exhaust channel to the atmosphere (claim 1, see included translation).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the system of Yue with the pressure adjuster of Furuya such that the combination teaches “a pressure reducing joint that reduces pressure of air supplied from the pump to the air bag, wherein the pressure reducing joint includes an internal flow channel constituting a part of the connecting flow channel, and an exhaust flow channel that constantly connects the internal flow channel to an atmosphere and discharges a part of air flowing through the internal flow channel to the atmosphere”, to provide the user with adjustable means for controlling the pressure entering the check valve and subsequently the connecting flow channel.
Regarding claim 3, Furuya as applied to claim 1 further teaches “wherein the exhaust flow channel has an opening edge (inner edge of 50, defining outer opening on left side of 50) on an atmosphere side, the opening edge being rounded (via 50 being rounded on its inside).”
Regarding claim 4, Furuya as applied to claim 1 further teaches “wherein the exhaust flow channel has a flow channel cross-sectional area that is smaller than a flow channel cross-sectional area of the internal flow channel (see FIG 4).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, closest art of record Yue/Furuya are further silent regarding “…
a first flow channel, including the internal flow channel and having a downstream end connected to the air bag; and
a second flow channel having a downstream end connected to an air supply target different from the air bag,
the air supply device further comprising:
a switching valve that is connected with a downstream end of the supply flow channel, an upstream end of the first flow channel, and an upstream end of the second flow channel, and switches a connection destination of the supply flow channel to one of the first flow channel and the second flow channel; and
a check valve that is provided between the pressure reducing joint and the air bag in the first flow channel, and restricts a flow of air from the air bag toward the pressure reducing joint while allowing a flow of air from the pressure reducing joint toward the air bag.”
While the combination does contain a branch flow path and switch (Yue FIG 5), as well as a check valve (Furuya FIGs), the obvious modification set forth in claim 1 would amount to a pressure reducer (of Furuya) located downstream of the pump but upstream of the 2-way valve (Yue FIG 1, between 1 and any of the ‘YAs) and therefore the switching valve (Yue 17). This would not read on a configuration where the internal flow channel (and therefore the pressure reducer) is located between the switching valve and the air bag (Yue, 17 and 20) as in essence is required by the claim. Furthermore, adding a check valve downstream of the switching valve would render Yue inoperable, as Yue uses 2-way flow from 20/23 via 16.
As the combination teaches against this limitation, it would not be obvious to modify Yue/Furuya to teach this feature.
Regarding claim 5, closest art of record Yue/Furuya are further silent regarding “the exhaust flow channel opening portion is recessed further toward the internal flow channel than the first base and the second base adjacent to the exhaust flow channel opening portion in the axial direction” in the context of the claim. The flow channel opening 26 in Furuya FIG 1 is recessed relative to one side/base 27 but not another side/base.
While possible, it would not be obvious to modify Yue/Furuya to teach this feature without undue hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Devices similar to the application are disclosed by Quioc, Kai, Nakayasu, and Hess.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)431-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/PATRICK C WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights