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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the People’s Republic of China on March 14, 2025. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 “distributed on both sides of a fire source” recited in claim 2; the “distributed around the fire source” recited in claim 3; the “chamber” recited in claim 4; the “opening of the chamber is sealable” recited in claim 4; the “connector” recited in claim 5; the “means of magnetic attraction or adhesion” recited in claim 6; and the “means of snap-fitting or hooking” recited in claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 024 indicates that Fig. 4 shows one counterweight block. Fig. 4 appears to show two counterweight blocks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one counterweight block” in line 2. The specification fails to provide written description of what the weight counteracts.
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 1-8 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 the limitation “accurate” in line 1. The determination of “accurate” requires a subjective interpretation. What may be considered “accurate” to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered “accurate” by another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "accurate tossing and positioning" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one counterweight block” in line 2. It is uncertain what the weight counteracts. It is uncertain to distinguish the “counterweight block” from a “weighted block.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…is used as a grasping point…” in line 5. The preamble of the claim is directed to an apparatus. The limitation appears to be directed to a method of using. The claim appears to cross two statutory classes of invention. Additionally, the claim fails to recite use method steps. This Office action considers an apparatus as the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “tossing” in line 5. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “tossing” recited in line 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “stabilize” in line 6. The determination of “stabilize” requires a subjective interpretation. What may be considered “stabilize” to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered “stabilize” by another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the counterweight block located on both sides of the axisymmetric line is located at the edge of the fire blanket body” in lines 7-8. Claim 1 recites the alternative “the counterweight block is mounted on an axisymmetric line of the fire blanket body or symmetrically distributed on both sides of the axisymmetric line” in lines 2-4. It is uncertain whether the limitation of lines 7-8 is further limiting an alternative that is not required or rendering the limitation “the counterweight block is mounted on an axisymmetric line of the fire blanket body” moot.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the edge" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “two counterweight blocks” in line 2. It is uncertain whether claim 2 requires at least 3 counterweight blocks or the “two counterweight blocks” is a double inclusion of the “at least one counterweight block” recited in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “both sides of a fire source” in lines 3-4. The preamble is directed to a fire blanket. The reference to “both sides of a fire source” exceeds the scope of the preamble.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a plurality of counterweight blocks” in line 2. It is uncertain whether claim 3 requires a plurality of counterweight blocks and at least one counterweight block or the “plurality of counterweight blocks” is a double inclusion of the “at least one counterweight block” recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “distributed around the fire source” in lines 3-4. The preamble is directed to a fire blanket. The reference to “distributed around the fire source” exceeds the scope of the preamble.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the fire source" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “an opening of the chamber is sealable” in line 3. The claim fails to recite structure to accomplish the function of the opening being sealable. The structure recited in the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function recited in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “means of magnetic attraction or adhesion” in lines 2-3. The claim fails to recite structure to accomplish the function of “means of magnetic attraction or adhesion.” The structure recited in the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function recited in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "magnetic attraction or adhesion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “means of snap-fitting or hooking” in lines 2-3. The claim fails to recite structure to accomplish the function of “means of snap-fitting or hooking.” The structure recited in the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function recited in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "snap-fitting or hooking " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “tossing” in line 3. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “tossing” recited in claim 1.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Diacos (2,720,269).
Diacos discloses a fire blanket for accurate tossing and positioning, comprising a fire blanket body 10, wherein at least one counterweight block 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 (metal bars, metal link chain; col. 3, ll. 1-13) is arranged on the fire blanket body, the counterweight block is mounted on an axisymmetric line of the fire blanket body or symmetrically distributed on both sides of the axisymmetric line (longitudinal axis line; see figure 1), and the at least one counterweight block is used as a grasping point for tossing the fire blanket body (col. 3, ll. 14-54), so as to stabilize the tossing during firefighting; and
the counterweight block located on both sides of the axisymmetric line is located at the edge 12 of the fire blanket body;
characterized in that two counterweight blocks 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 (metal bars, metal link chain; col. 3, ll. 1-13) are arranged, and the two counterweight blocks fly out with the fire blanket body and are distributed on both sides of a fire source (fire);
characterized in that a plurality of counterweight blocks 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 (metal bars, metal link chain; col. 3, ll. 1-13) are arranged, and the plurality of counterweight blocks fly out with the fire blanket body and are distributed around the fire source (fire);
characterized in that the fire blanket body is provided with a connector (13, 6, hems, metal staples, pin type fasteners; col. 3, ll. 1-13) connectable to the counterweight block, and the counterweight block is connected and fixed with the connector;
characterized in that the counterweight block is fixed with the connector by means of snap-fitting or hooking (hooking of stitches, metal staples or pin type fasteners);
characterized in that a handle structure 13, 16 is constructed on the counterweight block for tossing.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diacos (2,720,269) in view of Gottlieb et al. (5,628,066).
Diacos discloses the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of a chamber. Gottlieb et al. disclose a chamber 24 where the counterweight block is capable of being placed is arranged on the fire blanket body 2, and an opening (opening of container 24) of the chamber is sealable (sealable by lid 28). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the chamber of Gottlieb et al. to the fire blanket body of Diacos to improve fire protection function of burn treatment function (Gottlieb et al., col. 4, ll. 26-41).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diacos (2,720,269).
Diacos discloses the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of a means of magnetic attraction or adhesion to fix the counterweight block. Magnets are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a magnet to fixed the counterweight block of Diacos for easy removability of the blocks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK
