DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 22-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon et al (2018/0000179) (herein “Simon”) in view of Biere et al (8,626,586) (herein “Biere”) and further in view of Moreno (2018/0007993). In regards to claim 22, Simon teaches a graphic identity clothing system, comprising: a power source (See; p[0052 for power supply); and one electronically-enhanced clothing or apparel items (See; Figs. 3 and 4), each of said one or more electronically-enhanced clothing or apparel items comprising one or more outward-facing light sources (See; p[0042] for visual status indicators such as LEDs), and comprising at least three of the following: an outward-facing video screen, a microphone, a camera, a speaker, a sound-creating device, a wireless communications chip or device, and/or a microprocessor (See; Fig. 4 and p[0062] for an electronic face mask having several display segments 404, 406, 408, 410. See; p[0044] for a microphone and speakers, p[[0091] for cameras, p[0050] for wireless NIC card and p[0019] for processors); wherein the power source is electrically connected to at least one of the plurality of electronically-enhanced clothing or apparel items (See; Fig. 2 where power supply 234 supplies power to the clothing items). Simon further teaches that the disclosure may be applicable to other articles of clothing (See; p[0015]). Simon fails to explicitly teach a plurality of electronically enhanced clothing items. However, Biere teaches multiple electronically-enhanced clothing and/or apparel items are in wireless electronic communication, and combine to produce a coordinated electronic appearance (See; Abstract and claim 1 for coordinating visual advertising content over multiple wearable advertising display systems). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Simon to coordinate with other pieces of wearable display systems such as in Biere to increase user satisfaction in the device by being able to wear multiple electronically enhanced clothing and/or apparel items. Additionally it would be a mere duplication of parts to place the same invention of Simon on multiple pieces of clothing at the same time. The combination fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one of said plurality of electronically-enhanced clothing or apparel items comprise an intake fan and a separate discharge fan. However, Moreno teaches wherein at least one of said plurality of electronically-enhanced clothing or apparel items comprise an intake fan and a separate discharge fan (See; Fig. 4 and p[022-p[0024] for a helmet having separate exhaust fans 36 and intake fans 34). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparel of Simon or Biere with ventilation fans such as in Moreno so as to provide air flow to the user to help cool them down.
In regards to claim 23, Simon teaches wherein the power source comprises one or more batteries (See; p[052] for batteries), and further comprising a container or frame configured to hold one or more batteries (It is inherent that the batteries must be mounted to a frame or holder of some sort to be held within the device).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon et al (2018/0000179) (herein “Simon”) in view of Biere et al (8,626,586) (herein “Biere”) in view of Moreno (2018/0007993) and further in view of Robinson et al (2020/0057476) (herein “Robinson”).
In regards to claim 7, Simon fails to explicitly teach wherein the container or frame is configured to be worn on the back of a user. However Robinson teaches a container or frame configured to hold a plurality of batteries and be worn on the back of the user, wherein the container is electrically connected to the mask (See; Fig. 2 and p[0008] for a head mounted display and batteries in a backpack form-factor system worn on the user’s back). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Simon to use a battery backpack system such as in Robinson to increase the amount of power being available to the system, thus allowing it to operate for longer time periods.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 are allowed.
Claim 25 is 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)270-7503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272-7776. 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.
/JONATHAN A BOYD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627