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 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. Currently, no claim limitation is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2025/0249292 to Turiello (Turiello) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0260345 to Frenal et al. (Frenal).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Turiello discloses an air replenishment system and method (embodiment of Fig. 5), comprising: supplying gas via a first fluid channel (the channel for low pressure air source 502 to the booster pump); supplying air from a second tank (tanks 108) to a pump (402, 404) via a second fluid channel (the channel from tanks 108 to pump 402, 404); and providing, the gas to the pump at a pressure that is lower than a pressure of the air supplied from the second tank to the pump ([0036]; gas supply 502 is at lower pressure than the air from tanks 108), with the first fluid channel separate from the second fluid channel (Fig. 5). Turiello does not disclose the gas is supplied from a tank to a regulator which lowers the pressure. Frenal teaches a tank which supplies gas to a regulator which lowers the pressure of the gas ([0089]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a tank and regulator as taught by Frenal in the system and method of Turiello for supplying the low pressure gas. Such a change requires only the substitution of one known supply of low pressure gas with another source of low pressure gas to ensure that the pressure is maintained at a desired value.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Turiello as modified by Frenal discloses the first tank is a drive air storage tank (low pressure gas is drive air for the pump and is supplied from the first tank, as modified above), but does not disclose the first tank is one of a plurality of drive air storage tanks, the plurality of drive air storage tanks including at least three drive air storage tanks. However, Turiello does disclose the other tanks (108, 202) are one of a plurality of tanks having at least 3 tanks (where N > 3 and K > 3). 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 likewise provided at least three of the first gas tanks such that a sufficient quantity of air is available to drive the pump during an emergency.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Turiello further discloses the second tank is one of a plurality of breathing air storage tanks (tanks 108), the plurality of breathing air storage tanks including at least three breathing air storage tanks (where N > 3).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Turiello further discloses a valve (310) to couple the first fluid channel with the second fluid channel, the valve to provide air from the first tank to the second tank along the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel ([0033]-[0035] and Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 15 and 16, Turiello as modified by Frenal does not disclose additional tanks, channels, valves and regulators. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for the system having any number of additional tanks, channels, valves and regulators, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Providing additional tanks (with associated channels, valves and regulators) allows for the supply of air to be increased to ensure that enough air is available during an emergency.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Turiello further discloses the pressure of the air supplied to the pump is between 3000 psig to 6000 psig ([0030]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Turiello further discloses the gas is at least one of a solid state, liquid state, or a gaseous state (the gas is low pressure air).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Turiello further discloses the gas is at least one of pneumatic air (the low pressure air is pneumatic air) or nitrogen.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turiello as modified by Frenal as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0334061 to Toelle (Toelle).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Turiello as modified by Frenal discloses the air replenishment system and method of claims 1 and 11 (see above), but does not disclose the pressure of the gas supplied to the pump from the regulator is at least 100 psig. Toelle discloses a breathing apparatus filling station including a pneumatic line which provides gas at a pressure of at least 100 psig (see [0078]; for example, when the pressure is 250 psig). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system and method of Turiello as modified by Frenal such that the pressure of the gas suppled to the pump is at least 100 psig as taught by Toelle, as discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 8,375,948 and US Patent Application Publication 2012/0031525 disclose systems and methods for air replenishment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLAS A ARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M- F, 8AM - 3PM.
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.
/NICOLAS A ARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights