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 .
Response to Amendment
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 3/12/2026, claims 1, 18, 21 are amended. Claims 1-13, 15, 17-21 are currently pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b), and it has introduced new ones.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Azzolin and Keyes “because doing so would dictate using a coated, non-breathable airbag material that is designed for external exposure, but would not align with Azzolin’s stated goal of improving ventilation” (Remarks, page 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed inventio must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, the modification as presented in the rejection has never suggested changing the material of the airbag of Azzolin to be the material taught in Keyes. Keyes was solely relied upon in the rejection to teach the use of a partition of hook and loop fasteners to keep the deflated airbag of Azzolin in its compact configuration. All other aspects of the airbag and housing (i.e., the materials that they are made of) are taught by Azzolin.
Applicant further argues that Keyes and Azzolin have “different goals and divergent solutions” (Remarks, page 9) from each other, which appears to be an argument that the two references are not analogous art to each other. In response, Examiner notes that in an obviousness rejection, prior art references need to be analogous art to the instant application. See MPEP 2141.01(a)(I), which states, “In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” In the instant case, both Azzolin and Keyes are analogous to the instant application in the field of wearable protection devices, and even more particularly, wearable protection devices which have an inflatable member and provide protection from impacts or falls (see paragraph 1 of the instant specification which describes the field of endeavor of the instant application as follows: “The present invention relates to a wearable protection device. In particular, the present invention relates to a wearable protection device which comprises an inflatable member. More specifically, the present invention relates to a wearable protection device with an inflatable member, suitable for being used in all the fields where an effective protection against impacts and/or falls must be obtained”).
Applicant further argues that the combination of Azzolin and Keyes would not disclose all the limitations of amended claim 1 because “[the hook and loop fasteners of Keyes] are designed to be forced open to allow the airbag to expand outwardly, beyond the enclosing surface” (Remarks, page 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears that Applicant believes that the entire structure of the airbag of Keyes is being substituted/incorporated into the structure of Azzolin in the rejection, but that is not the case and such a modification has not been suggested in the rejection. Examiner reiterates that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, the primary reference is Azzolin. Azzolin’s housing is a fully enclosed volume with two regions: a first region in which Azzolin prefers that the airbag stay when it is in the deflated state, and a second region into which the airbag will expand upon inflation. The Keyes reference teaches the concept of using hook and loop fasteners to contain an airbag in a compact configuration while deflated but allow expansion into an inflated configuration when necessary, and this teaching is the only aspect of Keyes that is relied upon in the rejection. In other words, the modification only adds hook and loop fasteners to the inside of the housing of Azzolin, and the reasoning for doing so is based upon the teachings of Keyes. The specific structure of the airbag of Keyes is not pertinent to the rejection and the rejection does not suggest adding, substituting, or otherwise incorporating any of the wider structure of the airbag of Keyes into the structure of Azzolin. Because Azzolin already teaches a fully enclosed volume for the housing, and the modification by Keyes does not change that, the Examiner maintains that the prior art reads on the claim as written.
Applicant further argues that adding a partition as suggested in the rejection would “undermine [Azzolin’s] fundamental principle of operation” (Remarks, page 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The principle of operation of the garment of Azzolin is to function as protection device for the user by using an airbag that will inflate within the garment upon impact. The modification as proposed by the Examiner does not change how the garment of Azzolin operates, as the addition of the partition does not prohibit the airbag from inflating to its full size and providing the full and equal protection of the original, unmodified garment of Azzolin. Applicant submits that the “seamless” arrangement between the first and second regions is the “inventive concept” of Azzolin. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Azzolin extensively discusses the advantages of having the inflatable member be in a compact configuration confined to one region of the garment when deflated (see paragraph 26, which indicates that a particular advantage of the garment of Azzolin over other garments is the configuration of the inflatable member when deflated because it maximizes comfort and mobility), as well as the importance of preventing the inflatable member from shifting or spreading out into the second region while it is deflated (see paragraphs 47-50). The inventive concept of Azzolin therefore appears to be related to the compact configuration of the airbag while deflated and subsequent expansion to occupy a larger space when inflated, which does not particularly require that the regions be “seamless”. Additionally, Examiner submits that the hook and loop fasteners as added in the modification do not necessarily even constitute a “seam” as suggested by Applicant because they are not a permanent closure between the two regions of the housing, but rather they are designed to open immediately upon impact and allow the airbag to fully expand, as described in Keyes. Additionally, MPEP 2143.01(V) states, “"Although statements limiting the function or capability of a prior art device require fair consideration, simplicity of the prior art is rarely a characteristic that weighs against obviousness of a more complicated device with added function." In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1344, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1638 (Fed. Cir. 1998)” and “‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2006)”. Examiner maintains that the added functionality provided by the hook and loop fasteners in maintaining the inflatable member in the compact configuration provides an advantage which aligns with the goals of Azzolin and therefore it would be obvious to modify Azzolin to add them in view of the teachings of Keyes.
Applicant asserts that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency from claim 1; however, as described in the arguments above and rejections below, claim 1 is not allowable over the prior art. The dependent claims remain rejected.
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 4, 10, 12 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitations “the outer surface” and “the inner surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, as claim 1 has been amended to change “surface” to “layer”. It is therefore unclear if these limitations are specifically referring to surfaces of the layers or if they are intended to refer to the layers as a whole. For the purposes of examination, these limitations have been interpreted as “the outer layer” and “the inner layer”.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitations “said inner surface” and “said outer surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, as claim 1 has been amended to change “surface” to “layer”. It is therefore unclear if these limitations are specifically referring to surfaces of the layers or if they are intended to refer to the layers as a whole. For the purposes of examination, these limitations have been interpreted as “the outer layer” and “the inner layer”.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitations “said inner surface” and “said outer surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, as claim 1 has been amended to change “surface” to “layer”. It is therefore unclear if these limitations are specifically referring to surfaces of the layers or if they are intended to refer to the layers as a whole. For the purposes of examination, these limitations have been interpreted as “the outer layer” and “the inner layer”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 15, 17, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azzolin in view of Keyes (US 5500952).
Regarding claim 1, Azzolin discloses: A wearable protection device (garment 1) comprising at least one inflatable member (inflatable member 100) designed to move between an at least partially folded up or rolled up condition, in which the at least one inflatable member is in a deflated status, and an unfolded or unrolled condition, in which the at least one inflatable member is in an inflated status (“[the inflatable member is] apt to substantially assume a first operating condition of rest, or deflated condition, and a second operating condition active, or inflated condition” paragraph 29; “the inflatable member 100 can preferably assume, in the deflated condition, a folded configuration, substantially an accordion configuration” paragraph 46; see also figures 5 and 6 showing the folded accordion configuration; see figure 7 showing the unfolded configuration); in the at least partially folded up or rolled up condition said at least one inflatable member being housed in a housing that defines a fully enclosed volume having a continuous outer boundary (seat 20; “seat 20 is a pocket, i.e. a housing formed between two layers of the garment” paragraph 32) provided in the wearable protection device, the at least one inflatable member in the unfolded or unrolled condition remaining within the fully enclosed volume of the housing (see figure 7 showing the inflatable member being inflating and remaining within the limits of the housing), the at least one inflatable member in the at least partially folded up or rolled up condition occupying a first portion of the housing (“the first region 20a is configured to accommodate the inflatable member when the latter is in a deflated condition. The second region 20b is free from the inflatable member when the latter is in a deflated condition and does not receive the latter. The second region 20b is intended to receive the inflatable member when the latter is in an inflated condition. In other words, the second region 20b defines an empty space, that is, not occupied by the inflatable member 100, when it is in a non-inflated configuration. On the contrary, when the inflatable member 100 is in an inflated configuration, it is spread out and occupies the space of the second region 20b” (paragraphs 38-39), an inner surface of the housing directed toward a wearer and an outer surface of the housing directed away from the wearer (see annotated figure 6 below showing the inner and outer layers; “the seat 20 is a pocket, i.e., a housing formed between two layers of the garment” paragraph 32).
PNG
media_image1.png
242
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 6 of Azzolin showing the inner and outer layers of the housing
Azzolin does not explicitly disclose: said portion being at least partially closed by means of a partition disposed within said fully enclosed volume which separates at least partially the first portion from a second portion of the housing, wherein said partition directly connects an inner layer of the housing with an outer layer of the housing, said partition having a calibrated breakdown tension so as to break or unlock when the at least one inflatable member moves from the deflated status into the inflated status, such that there is expansion of the at least one inflatable member into the second portion of the housing while remaining inside the housing.
However, Keyes teaches an inflatable garment in which the inflatable member is folded or pleated when in the uninflated state. Specifically, Keyes teaches “the protective device 12, as shown in FIG. 4 includes an outer enclosing surface 20 and inner pleats and Velcro-type hook and loop closures 24 and 26 to hold the pleated portions of the airbag assembly in their compact uninflated configuration” column 5, lines 43-47). See figure 4 showing the hook and loop closures 24 and 26 holding the folded portion of the airbag in place. Keyes also teaches that the hook and loop closures have a breakdown tension so as to break or unlock when the at least one inflatable member moves from the deflated status into the inflated status, such that there is expansion of the inflatable member (“upon inflation, the pleats expand and force open the thin Velcro-type closure strips 24 and 26, which in the uninflated state keep the folded pleats 22 inside the outer enclosing surface 20” Keyes, column 5, lines 64-67).
Keyes teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of wearable protection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add hook and loop closures, as taught by Keyes, to the end of the first region (20a) of Azzolin in order to keep the folded inflatable member in place in the uninflated configuration and prevent it from unfolding or shifting into the second region (20b) before it is inflated. Examiner notes that this configuration directly connects an inner layer of the housing and an outer layer of the housing insofar as defined by the claim or specification, and that since the partition has a calibrated breakdown tension (see Keyes, column 5, lines 64-67), as modified, when the partition separates, it would allow expansion of the inflatable member into the second region (20b) of the housing. Examiner further notes that the inflatable member of Azzolin always remains within the housing even when inflated (see paragraphs 38-39 of Azzolin) and the modification to add a partition within the housing does not change that.
Regarding claim 2, Azzolin as modified discloses: The wearable protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that the at least one inflatable member in the at least partially folded up or rolled up condition of the deflated status has an unfolded or unrolled portion and at least one folded up or rolled up portion, said at least one folded up or rolled up portion being arranged at an outer perimeter and/or at an internal area of the at least one inflatable member (see annotated figure 6 of Azzolin below; Examiner also notes that the size of the unfolded/unrolled portion and the folded/rolled portion are not specified).
PNG
media_image2.png
219
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 6 of Azzolin showing unfolded and folded portions of the inflatable member
Regarding claim 3, Azzolin as modified discloses: The wearable protection device according to claim 2, characterized in that the wearable protection device comprises retaining means designed to keep said at least one folded up or rolled up portion of the at least one inflatable member in the folded or rolled up condition (Azzolin, connecting means 140; “in order to assure the stability of the folded configuration of the inflatable member 100 during the use of the garment 1, and thus preventing said inflatable member 100 from spreading out when it is in the non-inflated condition, the sub-portions 100a, 100b, 100c are joined together […] by means of a suitable connection means 140” paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood by Examiner, Azzolin as modified discloses: The wearable protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that said housing is a pocket provided in the wearable protection device (Azzolin, “seat 20 is a pocket, i.e. a housing formed between two layers of the garment” paragraph 32) and/or said housing is a separate casing applied at the outer surface or at the inner surface of the wearable protection device, the separate casing being permanently or removably fixed to the wearable protection device (Examiner notes that the housing being a separate casing is not required, as the housing is a pocket as described previously).
Regarding claim 5, Azzolin as modified discloses: The wearable protection device according to claim 2, characterized in that the folded up or rolled up portion of the at least one inflatable member has an accordion-shaped configuration or an S-shaped configuration or a U-shaped configuration (Azzolin, “the inflatable member 100 can preferably assume, in the deflated condition, a folded configuration, substantially an accordion configuration” paragraph 46; see also figures 5 and 6 showing the folded accordion configuration).
Regarding claim 6, Azzolin as modified does not explicitly disclose: The wearable protection device according to claim 2, characterized in that the at least one folded up or rolled up portion of the at least one inflatable member has a U-shaped configuration, said U-shaped configuration being obtained by inserting an end portion of the at least one inflatable member inside a cavity delimited by an inner side and an outer side of the at least one inflatable member.
However, Keyes teaches an inflatable member (22) with a folded up or rolled up portion that has a U-shaped configuration, said U-shaped configuration being obtained by inserting an end portion of the inflatable member inside a cavity delimited by an inner side and an outer side of the inflatable member. See figure 4 annotated below.
PNG
media_image3.png
379
367
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Keyes showing the “U-shaped” folding configuration formed by inserting an end of the inflatable member into a cavity between an inner and outer side of the inflatable member
Keyes teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of wearable protection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to substitute the folding method of the inflatable member of Azzolin with the folding method of the inflatable member as taught by Keyes because it would be the simple substitution of one known folding method for another which would yield only the predictable result of folding up the inflatable member to fit in a smaller area. See MPEP 2143(B). Examiner further notes that, while Azzolin shows an exemplary method of folding in the figures, the description only states that “the inflatable member 100 can preferably assume, in the deflated condition, a folded configuration, substantially an accordion configuration” (paragraph 46), and the folding configuration as taught by Keyes may also be considered a “substantially accordion” configuration due to the undulation of the folds, as shown in figure 4 of Keyes. Further, folding the inflatable member of Azzolin in the configuration as taught by Keyes would provide an advantage over the method shown in the figures of Azzolin in that inflating the inflatable member would not have to push air through multiple turns in the inflatable member, which simplifies the inflation process.
Regarding claim 7, Azzolin as modified discloses: The wearable protection device according to claim 3, characterized in that said retaining means have a breakdown tension so as to allow a deployment of the at least one folded up or rolled up portion of the at least one inflatable member when the at least one inflatable member is inflated (Azzolin, “said connecting means 140 are apt to break when subject to a predetermined tension threshold. In such a way, the connecting means 140 allow simultaneously the inflatable member 100 to maintain the folded configuration during normal use of the garment 1 and to unfold upon inflation” paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 8, Azzolin as modified discloses: The wearable protection device according to claim 3, characterized in that said retaining means comprise at least one tie member externally connecting the at least one folded up or rolled up portion of the at least one inflatable member with an opposite portion of the at least one inflatable member (see figure 5 showing the connecting means 140 externally connecting portions of the inflatable member).
Regarding claim 9, Azzolin as modified does not explicitly disclose: The wearable protection device according to claim 8, characterized in that said at least one tie member is made with an elastic material.
However, Azzolin further teaches in an alternate embodiment “alternatively, as a connecting means [140], it may be provided a sleeve body, in elastic and flexible material, for example a mesh sleeve or elastic mesh, which follows the deployment of the inflatable member up to the extended position.” (paragraph 49).
Azzolin teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of wearable protection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the connecting means (140) of Azzolin out of an elastic material, as taught in the alternate embodiment of Azzolin, in order to make the garment more reusable after inflation, as the elastic would be less likely to completely break when the garment is inflated and can “[follow] the deployment of the inflatable member up to the extended position” (paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 11, Azzolin as modified discloses: The wearable protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that the housing is made with a breathable material or a mesh material (Azzolin, “preferably, at least the garment area 1 corresponding to the regions 20a and 20b containing the portions of inflatable member 11 intended to protect the user’s chest, is made of a transpiring material or material allowing air to flow through it” paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 15, Azzolin as modified discloses: The wearable protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that the partition seals the first portion so as to fully separate the first portion from the second portion (as combined, the hook and loop closures of Keyes would fully separate the first region 20a of Azzolin from the second region 20b of Azzolin).
Regarding claim 17, Azzolin as modified discloses: The wearable protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that the at least one inflatable member in the unfolded or unrolled condition occupies the whole housing (see figures 2 and 7 of Azzolin showing the inflatable member occupies the whole housing when unfolded/inflated; “when the inflatable member 100 is in an inflated configuration, it is spread out and occupies the space of the second region 20b” Azzolin, paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 21, Azzolin as modified discloses: The wearable protection device according to claim 2, wherein said wearable protection device when worn is configured to protect at least an upper part of a trunk of a wearer (Azzolin, “the seat 20 has a first region 20a and a second region 20b , for example substantially at the user’s chest” paragraph 35; see figures 1 and 2), wherein said at least one folded up or rolled up portion of the at least one inflatable member is designed to be arranged at a shoulder area and/or at an upper chest area of the wearer when the wearable protection device is worn (see figure 1 of Azzolin showing that the inflatable member in the deflated/folded up/rolled up condition is arranged at a shoulder/upper chest area), and wherein the at least one inflatable member, when moving from the deflated status into the inflated status, is adapted to cover arms, back, and rear of the wearer (Azzolin, “the inflatable member 100 may further comprise a second part 120 arranged at the user’s backbone” paragraph 54; see figures 3 and 4; Examiner further notes that the italicized limitations are intended use limitations, and it has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). In particular, whether the inflatable member protects certain parts of a wearer is entirely dependent on the way in which the user wears the garment, as a user could have their arms crossed inside the garment in which case their arms would be covered, or alternatively, a small child may wear an adult sized garment simply draped over their shoulders without putting their arms into the sleeves in which case their arms would also be covered. As Azzolin as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written).
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azzolin/Keyes in further view of McGee (US 4089065).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood by Examiner, Azzolin as modified does not explicitly disclose: one or more spacers are provided between said inner surface and said outer surface of the housing so as to keep the inner surface and the outer surface spaced apart.
However, McGee teaches an inflatable garment made of two layers of material with “straps 58, as shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B, are selectively located between the two layers of material 48 and 50 with the two ends attached to each of the two different layers. The straps 58 help to maintain the relative position of the two layers when the garment is in an inflated state” (column 5, lines 6-11). See also figures 3A and 3B showing the straps when the garment is in the deflated condition and the inflated condition, respectively.
McGee teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of wearable protection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the straps (58) as taught by McGee to connect the housing layers of Azzolin in order to “help maintain the relative position of the two layers” and “restrict the bellowing or ballooning effect in desired portions of the garment” (McGee, column 5, lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood by Examiner, Azzolin as modified does not explicitly disclose: The wearable protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that said inner surface and said outer surface of the housing are connected by one or more flexible internal ties; said one or more flexible internal ties being in an untensioned condition collapsed inside the housing during the normal use of the wearable device, whereas when the at least one inflatable member is moving in the inflated condition, said one or more flexible internal ties are subjected to a tensile force.
However, McGee teaches an inflatable garment made of two layers of material with “straps 58, as shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B, are selectively located between the two layers of material 48 and 50 with the two ends attached to each of the two different layers. The straps 58 help to maintain the relative position of the two layers when the garment is in an inflated state, and may be used to restrict the bellowing or ballooning effect in desired portions of the garment” (column 5, lines 6-11). See also figures 3A and 3B showing the straps when the garment is in the deflated condition and the inflated condition, respectively.
McGee teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of wearable protection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the straps (58) as taught by McGee to connect the housing layers of Azzolin in order to “help maintain the relative position of the two layers when the garment is in an inflated state” and “restrict the bellowing or ballooning effect in desired portions of the garment” (McGee, column 5, lines 9-12).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azzolin/Keyes in further view of Dainese (US 8910319).
Regarding claim 13, Azzolin as modified does not explicitly disclose: The wearable protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that folded up or rolled up portion, when the inflatable member is in its folded condition, has a thickness less than 2.5 cm.
However, Dainese teaches a wearable protection device (garment 10) comprising at least one inflatable member (inflatable member 12) with a folded, deflated condition (column 1, line 35) and an unfolded, inflated status (column 7, lines 61-65). Specifically, Dainese teaches “Preferably, in the undeformed condition, the insert is substantially flat, flush as or coplanar with the part of the covering portion adjacent thereto. In fact, in the garment according to the present disclosure, when the inflatable member is in an undeformed or only partly undeformed condition, the insert does not form preferably zones projecting from the remainder of the covering portion, so that the inflatable member is not visible from the exterior.” (column 3, lines 21-28).
Dainese teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of wearable protection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the inflatable member of Azzolin with a thickness less than 2.5 cm in the folded condition in order to ensure that the inflatable member is flat, flush, or coplanar with the garment and not visible from the exterior, as taught by Dainese, which is beneficial for aesthetic purposes because the garment will look like a regular garment and other people will not be able to notice the inflatable member. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the folded inflatable member in whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. See MPEP 2144.04.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 (and dependent claims 19-20) are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights