DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filled on 11/12/2024 is being considered in the examination of this application.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
a. Claims 1 and 17: the “mechanically activated apparatus with an energy-storing release mechanism that stores potential energy and release it”;
b. Claim 7: the “energy-storing release mechanism comprises one or more springs”.
No new matter should be entered.
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the following as described in the specification:
a. para. [0025]: “The claimed embodiments address this limitation by introducing an automated deployment device equipped with an energy-storing release mechanism. This mechanism stores potential energy—such as in springs, elastic elements, or compressed gas—and releases it upon activation to deploy the life ring swiftly and accurately into the water.”;
b. para. [0034]: “An energy-storing release mechanism is a device that accumulates potential energy and releases it rapidly to perform a specific action when activated. It typically consists of components such as springs (coil, torsion, or leaf springs), elastic elements, compressed gas systems, pistons, or elevated weights—all of which store energy when a force is applied to them. The mechanism includes a mechanically activated trigger or release system, like a latch or catch, that holds the stored energy in place until activation. Upon triggering—either manually or automatically—the mechanism releases the stored potential energy, converting it into kinetic energy that propels or moves an attached component, such as deploying a life ring into the water.”;
c. Para. [0044]: “The first and second telescoping arms are mechanically coupled to the energy-storing release mechanism such that the energy-storing release mechanism causes the first and second telescoping arms to extend when the energy-storing release mechanism is activated and released. The first and second telescoping arms are retracted when the energy-storing release mechanism is storing potential energy.”.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
5. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
a. para. [0041]: “life ring 1020”;
b. para. [0051]: “light 1003”.
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
6. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 1, 7, 12-13, 15 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 1, line 4: the term “configured for holding” should be rewritten as --configured to hold-- such that the claim conforms with current U.S. practice, in particular for apparatus claims.
b. Claim 1, line 6: the term “it” should be replaced with the exact structure that is being referenced for the purpose of clarity. Similarly, for claims 7, 12-13 and 17.
c. Claim 1, line 7: the term “configured for activating” should be rewritten as --configured to active-- such that the claim conforms with current U.S. practice, in particular for apparatus claims.
d. Claim 7, line 2: the term “that that” should be rewritten as --that--.
e. Claim 7, line 2: the limitation “potential energy” should be rewritten --the potential energy-- such that there is sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
f. Claim 12, lines 1-2: the term “a personal unit worn by a sailor” should be rewritten as --a personal unit configured to be worn by a sailor-- for the purpose of clarity and such that the claim conforms with current U.S. practice.
g. Claim 15, lines 2-3: the limitation “an electronic chart or map” should be rewritten as --the electronic chart or map-- such that there is sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
h. Claim 18: the dependency of the claim appears to be a typographical error and should be amended such that the claim depends from claim 17 with consideration of the claimed subject matter already recited in claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
8. Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
9. Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
10. 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.
11. 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. Claims 1, 4, 6 and 17: the “energy-storing release mechanism that stores potential energy”.
b. Claims 1 and 17: “interface configured for activating”.
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 § 103
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winick (US 4702715 A), in view of Hudson (US 2011/00065342 A1), in view of Liu et al. (CN 106892069 A), hereinafter “Liu” [see attached translational document for any reference made to the text], in view of Kotoh et al. (US 4668200 A), hereinafter “Kotoh”.
14. Regarding Claim 1, Winick discloses a life ring deployment system (Abstract; an automatic rescue apparatus as seen FIGS. 1 and 3-5), comprising:
a life ring (160);
a deployment device configured for holding the life ring and automatically deploying the life ring when activated, the deployment device comprising a mechanically activated apparatus with an energy-storing release mechanism that stores potential energy and release it to deploy the life ring when activated (col. 2, ll. 32-38 and col. 2, ll. 48-63 and col. 4, ln. 14 - col. 5, ln. 1; marker buoy housing 148, launcher arm 150 and tongue 158 prevent left ring 160 from falling away from launcher housing 110 prior to activation via solenoid 112 and release pin 116 as seen in FIGS. 1 and 3-5, furthermore torsional spring 152 as well as springs 122 and 140 each configured to release potential energy to deploy life ring 160 as seen in FIGS. 3-8, furthermore springs are by definition energy-storing release mechanism that store potential energy and release energy); and
an interface configured for activating the deployment device (col. 4, ll. 5-15; radio signals to receiver 103 in the launcher housing 110 and the receiver activates an electric relay 105 which energizes solenoid 112 to activate launcher housing 110 as seen in FIG. 1).
Winick is silent regarding a light, a geotracking unit and a radio frequency (RF) transmitter for transmitting a current location of the life ring.
Hudson discloses a life ring (Hudson Abstract and FIG. 9) comprising a light (para. [0040]; life ring 80 including lights 84 as seen in FIG. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Winick as taught by Hudson such that the life ring includes a light in order to improve visibility of the life ring in low-light or night-time maritime environments, thereby allowing rescuers to quickly and efficiently locate the life ring.
Modified Winick is silent regarding a life ring including a geotracking unit and a radio frequency (RF) transmitter for transmitting a current location of the life ring.
Liu discloses a life ring (Liu Abstract and FIG. 1) comprising a geotracking unit (p. 2; life ring 1 including GPS positioning device 2 which is by the definition provided in para. [0055] of the applicant’s specification considered to be a geotracking unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Winick as taught by Liu such that the life ring includes a geotracking unit and a radio frequency (RF) transmitter for transmitting a current location of the life ring in order to facilitate the rapid positioning and recovery of the life ring in conditions where the life ring is not visible to search and rescue personnel.
Modified Winick is silent regarding a radio frequency (RF) transmitter for transmitting a current location of the life ring.
Kotoh discloses a life buoy (Kotoh Abstract and FIG. 1) including a radio frequency (RF) transmitter for transmitting a current location of the life ring (Abstract and col. 3, ll. 48-54; the receiving antenna 15 receives radio waves form a searcher’s radar and the transmitting antenna 17 transmits signals thereto, therefore transmitting antenna 17 is by definition an RF transmitter which is structurally capable of transmitting a current location of the life buoy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Winick as taught by Kotoh such that the life ring includes a light in order to provide a redundancy and means independent of the light and geotracking unit as a safety measure in a scenario where the light cannot be seen and where transmission of location data from the geotracking unit is delayed.
15. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winick (US 4702715 A), Hudson (US 2011/00065342 A1), Liu et al. (CN 106892069 A) and Kotoh et al. (US 4668200 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schelfhout (US 6093069 A).
16. Regarding Claim 2, modified Winick discloses the life ring deployment system of claim 1.
Modified Winick is silent regarding the life ring further comprises a battery for powering the geotracking unit and RF transmitter.
Schelfhout discloses a flotation unit of a buoy system (Schelfhout Abstract and FIG. 1) comprising a battery for powering the geotracking unit and RF transmitter (col. 3, ll. 46-61; flotation unit 20 including a GPS having antenna connected to a GPS transmitter-receiver powered by batteries 28 as seen in FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Winick as taught by Schelfhout such that the life ring further comprises a battery for powering the geotracking unit and RF transmitter in order to supply electrical power to the geotracking unit and RF transmitter for performing operations as intended by the user.
17. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winick (US 4702715 A), Hudson (US 2011/00065342 A1), Liu et al. (CN 106892069 A) and Kotoh et al. (US 4668200 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stewart et al. (US 6935911 B1), hereinafter “Stewart”.
18. Regarding Claim 8, modified Winick discloses (see Winick) the life ring deployment system of claim 1, wherein the deployment device is configured to be coupled in vertically (Abstract and col. 1, ll. 39-43; the automatic rescue apparatus is configured to be mounted vertically as seen in FIGS. 1 and 3-5).
Modified Winick is silent regarding the deployment device is coupled to a vertical post.
Stewart discloses a life ring deployment system (Stewart Abstract and FIG. 1) wherein the deployment device (12) is coupled to a vertical post (11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Winick as taught by Stewart such that the deployment device is coupled to a vertical post in order to securely mount the deployment system in a stable manner as well as improving the range in which the life ring may be deployed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is allowed (note claim objections and drawing objections which must be overcome).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to disclose the combined limitation of claim 17. In particular, a computing system comprising a memory, a processor, a display and an RF receiver for receiving RF signals, wherein said computing system is communicatively coupled with the interface.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 3-7, 9-16 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose the combined limitations of claims 1, 2 and 3. In particular, wherein the deployment device further comprises a pair of brackets to which the life ring is coupled, wherein said pair of brackets release the life ring when the deployment device is activated. Furthermore, the prior art of record fails to disclose the combined limitations of claims 1 and 9. In particular, the life ring deployment system further comprising a computing system comprising a memory, a processor, a display and an RF receiver for receiving RF signals, wherein said computing system is communicatively coupled with the interface.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Jiang (CN 108100187 A), Wang et al. (CN 110127005 A), Wang (CN 116674704 A), Bai (CN 109018255 A) and Huang (CN 108860518 A) individually disclose a life ring deployment system, comprising: a life ring; a deployment device configured for holding the life ring and automatically deploying the life ring when activated, the deployment device comprising a mechanically activated apparatus with an energy-storing release mechanism that stores potential energy and release it to deploy the life ring when activated; and an interface configured for activating the deployment device.
Wilson (US 5197911 A) discloses a buoy deployment system, comprising: a buoy; a deployment device configured for holding the buoy and automatically deploying the buoy when activated, the deployment device comprising a mechanically activated apparatus with an energy-storing release mechanism that stores potential energy and release it to deploy the buoy when activated; and an interface configured for activating the deployment device.
Kowng (US 2013/0231805 A1) discloses a swimming hoop comprising a geotracking unit and a radio frequency (RF) transmitter for transmitting a current location of the hoop.
Rajendran et al. (US 2025/0326474 A1) discloses a life ring deployment system, comprising: a life ring including a light, a geotracking unit and a radio frequency (RF) transmitter for transmitting a current location of the life ring; a deployment device configured for holding the life ring and automatically deploying the life ring when activated, the deployment device comprising a mechanically activated apparatus with an energy-storing release mechanism that stores potential energy and release it to deploy the life ring when activated; and an interface configured for activating the deployment device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm EST.
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, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights