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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
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 features canceled from the claims:
Claim 6 recites “a transmitter” but is not shown in the drawings. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably question how a transmitter would fit with the button shown in the drawings.
Claims 8 and 9 recite “an energy converter” and “the energy converter is an electric generator” but are not shown in the drawings. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably question how an electric generate would fit with the button shown in the drawings.
No new matter should be entered.
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, 10-12, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a second open end” and should be “a second end defining an open end” since there was no previously recited first open end.
Claim 1 recites “said connector” multiple times and should be “said air hose connector” to be consistent with other recitations of “said air hose connector” and to avoid any confusion of different connectors.
Claim 1 recites “a locking member adjacent to said first end” and should be “a locking member adjacent to said second end” since the locking member 34 or 44 are adjacent to the second end and not the first end.
Claim 10 recites “said connector” and should be “said air hose connector”.
Claim 11 recites “said connector” and should be “said air hose connector”.
Claim 12 recites “said connector” and should be “said air hose connector”.
Claim 15 recites “out of an air hose storage system” and should be “out of the air hose storage system” since the claim previously recited an air hose storage system.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a remote control unit that is configured to control a function of a component of an air hose system”. Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The specification recites “The remote control unit may include a button, for example a pushbutton. The button may be wireless…The button may include a transmitter. The transmitter may communicate, for example with a receiver on a storage system…in order to control the deployment of the air hose…”.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “a remote control unit that is configured to control a function of a component of an air hose system” as “a remote control unit as a button with a transmitter that is configured to control a function of a component of an air hose system” since it is at least a button with a transmitter that allows controlling of a function of a component of an air hose system.
Because the above claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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 1 recites “to a pre-conditioned air hose” which is unclear if this is the same or different from the previously recited “an air hose”. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “for a pre-conditioned air hose…to [[a]] the pre-conditioned air hose” to avoid confusion of different hoses.
Claim 15 recites “the movement of an air hose” which lacks proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “ the pre-conditioned air hose”.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 112th second paragraph by virtue of their dependency. Thus, claims 2-14 are rejected under 112th second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janis et al. (US 2004/0262918 A1, hereinafter “Janis”) in view of Schauer et al. (US 2001/0003563 A1, hereinafter “Schauer”).
In regard to claim 1, Janis discloses an air hose connector for a pre-conditioned air hose (Fig. 1, air hose connector 12 for a pre-conditioned air hose 14), the air hose connector comprising:
a first end that is configured for direct or indirect connection to the pre-conditioned air hose (Fig. 1, end near 42 that is configured for direct or indirect connection to 14),
a second end defining an open end (Fig. 1, end near 30 which defines an open end) that is configured for connection to an aircraft (Fig. 1, second end near 30 is for connection to an aircraft by aircraft inlet 16), and
a handle operably connected to the air hose connector (Fig. 1, handle at 24 which is operably connected to 12);
wherein the handle comprises:
a grip portion adjacent to said first end of said air hose connector (Fig. 1, grip portion at 24 which is adjacent to the first end near 42), and
a locking member adjacent to said second end of said air hose connector (Fig. 1, locking member at 38 which is adjacent to the second end);
wherein said handle is configured to move the locking member between a first, locked, configuration and a second, unlocked, configuration (Fig. 1, handle at 24 is for moving 38 into a locked configuration and an unlocked configuration).
Janis does not expressly disclose wherein the handle comprises a remote control unit as a button with a transmitter that is configured to control a function of a component of an air hose system.
In the related field of hose systems with handles, Schauer teaches a handle (Fig. 1, handle at 44) comprises a remote control unit as a button with a transmitter (Fig. 1, remote control unit at 58 which has a button at 58 and a transmitter at 62 that transmits an infrared signal 64) that is configured to control a function of a component of an air hose system (Fig. 1, the remote control unit controls a function of a pump 20 which is at least part of an air hose system) in order to have at least the advantage of remotely and efficiently controlling a function of a component (Fig. 1, the user is shown to be able to efficiently, remotely, and easily control the pump system 20 remotely by the remote control unit at the handle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handle of Janis to include a remote control unit as a button with a transmitter that is configured to control a function of a component of an air hose system with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of remotely and efficiently controlling a function of a component as taught by Schauer.
See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation to combine references may be implicit and when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. In this case, Schauer would reasonably suggest having a remote control unit at a handle to control the function intended by the attached hose line which would be at least more efficient and faster to operate as compared to a user having to operate a switch at the end where the receiver is for an air hose system.
In regard to claim 2, Janis and Schauer disclose an air hose connector according to claim 1, and Schauer further discloses wherein said grip portion includes said remote control unit (Fig. 1, the remote control unit at 58 is at a grip portion near the user’s hand. This interpretation is similar to applicant’s invention such that the grip portion at 32 and 42 is where a user’s hand grips as shown in Fig. 2 and the remote control unit is adjacent 32 and 42. See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Janis and Schauer.).
In regard to claim 3, Janis and Schauer disclose an air hose connector according to claim 1, and Schauer further discloses wherein said remote control unit is integrated into said grip portion (Fig. 1, the remote control unit at 58 is at least integrated into the grip portion such that it is integrally part of the grip portion where the user’s hand is. See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Janis and Schauer.).
In regard to claim 4, Janis and Schauer disclose an air hose connector to claim 1, and Schauer further discloses wherein said remote control unit includes a button (Fig. 1, 58 is a switch that requires at least a depression, therefore, 58 is at least a button. See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Janis and Schauer.).
In regard to claim 6, Janis and Schauer disclose an air hose connector according to claim 4, and Schauer further discloses wherein said button includes a transmitter (Fig. 1, transmitter 62. See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Janis and Schauer.).
In regard to claim 7, Janis and Schauer disclose an air hose connector according to claim 4, and Schauer further discloses wherein said button is battery-less (In [0038] 58 is powered by a wire, therefore, is battery-less. See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Janis and Schauer.).
In regard to claim 10, Janis and Schauer disclose an air hose connector according to claim 1, and Janis further discloses wherein said handle is pivotably connected to said air hose connector (Figs. 1 and 5-6 shows the handle is pivotably connected to the air hose connector).
In regard to claim 11, Janis and Schauer disclose an air hose connector according to claim 10, and Janis further discloses wherein said handle is pivotably connected to an outer wall of said air hose connector (Fig. 2 shows how the handle is pivotably connected to an outer wall of the air hose connector).
In regard to claim 12, Janis and Schauer disclose an air hose connector according to claim 1, and Janis further discloses wherein said air hose connector comprises an outer housing within which a portion of the handle is accommodated (Figs. 1 and 2, outer housing at 26 which a portion of the handle is accommodated as shown).
In regard to claim 13, Janis and Schauer disclose an air hose connector according to claim 12, wherein said grip portion extends from a recess at a first end of said outer housing (Figs. 1 and 2, the grip portion extends from a recess at a first end of the outer housing similar to applicant’s invention).
In regard to claim 14, Janis and Schauer disclose an air hose connector according to claim 13, and Janis further discloses wherein said locking member extends through a recess at a second end of said outer housing (Fig. 1, 38 extends through ha recess at 34 at a second end of the outer housing 26).
In regard to claim 15, Janis and Schauer disclose an air hose according to claim 1, wherein the component is an air hose storage system and the remote control unit is configured to control movement of the pre-conditioned air hose into and/or out of the air hose storage system (See note below and see claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Janis and Schauer that discloses a remote control unit.).
It is noted a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647. See MPEP § 2114. In this case, claim 1 recited “configured to control a function of a component of an air hose system” which is a functional recitation of the remote control unit. Therefore, the recitation in claim 15 of the component is part of the functional recitation in claim 1 and is not positively required. Accordingly, the remote control unit as taught by Janis in view of Schauer is configured to control movement of the pre-conditioned air hose into and/or out of the air hose storage system since the recitation does not structurally differentiate over the button and transmitter of Janis in view of Schauer.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janis (US 2004/0262918 A1) in view of Schauer (US 2001/0003563 A1) and further in view of Wang (AU 2009101181 A4).
Janis and Schauer disclose an air hose connector to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein said remote control unit includes a pushbutton.
In the related field of hose systems and remote controlled hose systems, Wang shows a remote control unit that utilizes pushbuttons for remote controlling (Fig. 2, remote control unit at 30 having at least one pushbutton at 32 for remote controlling).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the button of Janis in view of Schauer for a pushbutton with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a known and reliable structure for operating a remote controller as taught by Wang. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) with regard to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Additionally, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push-button such that pushbuttons are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art and a well-known structure for operating as switches.
Claims 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janis (US 2004/0262918 A1) in view of Schauer (US 2001/0003563 A1) and further in view of Ergo 2000 SRL (IT RM20100030 A1, hereinafter “Ergo”).
In regard to claim 5, Janis and Schauer disclose an air hose connector according to claim 4, but do not expressly disclose wherein said button is wireless.
In the related field of buttons, Ergo teaches a piezoelectric button that is wireless in order to have at least the advantage of a wireless button, battery-less button, adaptable to remote controls, and without a need of a power source to generate electricity (In [0003-0015] and [0032] of the English translation discloses the advantages of piezoelectric buttons).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the button of Janis in view of Schauer for a piezoelectric button with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of a wireless button, battery-less button, adaptable to remote controls, and without a need of a power source to generate electricity as taught by Ergo. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) with regard to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Additionally, piezo switches are well-known types of buttons. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezo_switch that discloses piezo switches are known and provide advantages over conventional mechanical counterparts. Furthermore, the crux of applicant’s invention is not the type of button or switch but rather a remote control unit to control an air hose system, however, remote control units on handles are not new and not inventive at least in view of Schauer.
In regard to claim 8, Janis and Schauer disclose an air hose connector according to claim 7, and Janis, Schauer, and Ergo disclose wherein said button includes an energy converter (See claim 5 above for the same reasons such that piezoelectric button convert stress into an electric charge).
In regard to claim 9, Janis, Schauer, and Ergo disclose an air hose connector according to claim 8, wherein the energy converter is an electric generator (See claim 5 above for the same reasons such that piezoelectric button system is a type of electric generator).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janis (US 2004/0262918 A1) in view of Schauer (US 2001/0003563 A1) and further in view of Harrelson, II (US 6,817,058 B1).
In the spirit of compact prosecution, the following is an interpretation of claim 15 such that the component is positively required.
Janis and Schauer disclose an air hose according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the component is an air hose storage system and the remote control unit is configured to control movement of the pre-conditioned air hose into and/or out of the air hose storage system.
In the related field of hose systems and remote controlled hose systems, Harrelson, II teaches a handle comprises a remote control unit as a button with a transmitter (Fig. 1, handle at 38 which has a remote control unit at 110, 112, and 113 having at least one button and a transmitter) that is configured to control a function of an air hose storage system (Fig. 1, the buttons at 110, 112, and 113 controls a function of an air hose storage system at 10) and the remote control unit is configured to control movement of an air hose into and out of the air hose storage system (Figs. 1-4 show the remote control unit is for controlling movement of an air hose 18 in and out of 10) in order to have at least the advantage of ease of controlling a hose in and out of a storage housing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Janis in view of Schauer to have the remote control unit for an air hose storage system such that the component is an air hose storage system and the remote control unit is configured to control movement of the pre-conditioned air hose into and/or out of the air hose storage system with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of ease of controlling a hose in and out of a storage housing as taught by Harrelson, II.
See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation to combine references may be implicit and when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. In this case, Harrelson, II would reasonably suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that having a remote controlled unit for moving a hose in and out of a storage housing would be more efficient and easier to have a desired length of hose when in use and an easy way to store the hose. Harrelson, II also suggests that the recitation “the component is an air hose storage system and the remote control unit is configured to control movement of the pre-conditioned air hose into and/or out of the air hose storage system” is not a new and inventive concept in addition to having a remote control unit on a handle.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tracey (US 2019/0248621 A1), Tracey et al. (US 2008/0223951 A1), Van Der Paul (US 9,315,360 B2), Cooper (US 11,225,394), Wright et al. (US 9,365,297), Link, Jr. (US 5,975,162), and Tracey et al. (US 11,873,188) disclose a remote control unit for controlling movement of a hose in and out of a reel or spool similar to the applicant’s claimed invention with regard to a remote control unit. Therefore, utilizing a remote control unit to control a hose is a not a new and inventive concept and neither a remote control unit on a handle because such designs have been previously invented as evidenced by the prior arts.
Gosis et al. (US 2008/0054631 A1) discloses an air hose connector with a handle similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William S. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-8223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/WILLIAM S. CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights