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In response to the Applicant’s election in the reply filed on 9/17/2025, claims 9-14 are withdrawn. Claims 1-14 are pending, and claims 1-8 are under examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 9/17/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-7 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 preamble “left/right band,” which is directed to a product, and then recites the step "an authority user is referencing" in the body. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). For the reason, dependent claims thereof are rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pierce (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0179542).
Regarding claim 1, Pierce discloses a left/right band (Abstract) comprising:
a band comprised of elastic material (¶47: “the annular band 12 is fabricated from an elastomeric compound”; ¶47 further discloses that the band 12 and bracelet 2500 are alternatively used: “As a further alternative, the annular band 12 is a spring-loaded metal expansion bracelet …”), the band having a top side (a first major surface 2505-1 in FIG. 26 and ¶69), a bottom side (a second major surface 2505-2 in FIG. 27 and ¶69), a first free end (2503-1 in FIG. 25), and a second free end (2503-2 in FIG. 25);
a fastening member configured to join the first free end and the second free end (¶69: “single-sided timer 2502 via first and second pivotal joints, such as ball joints 2503-1 and 2503-2”);
an identifier on the top side or the bottom side associated with a user's left side of the body or right side of the body (“RIGHT” in FIG. 26 or “LEFT” in FIG. 27); and,
wherein the left/right band is configured to aid the user in understanding which side of the body an authority user is referencing (the label “RIGHT”/”LEFT”).
Regarding claim 3, Pierce further discloses that the identifier is text comprising of "L" or "R" (“RIGHT” in FIG. 26 or “LEFT” in FIG. 27).
Regarding claim 4, Pierce further discloses that the identifier is a color (¶50: “Other symbols may be used to indicate right and left, such as a different color”).
Regarding claim 5, Pierce further discloses that the user's left side of the body or right side of the body is the user's arm or leg (FIG. 25 and ¶11: “As most right-handed individuals typically wear a watch on the left arm, and most left-handed individuals wear one on their right arm”).
Regarding claim 6, Pierce further discloses that the user's left side of the body or right side of the body is the user's hand or foot (FIG. 2 shows the hand).
Regarding claim 7, Pierce further discloses that the authority user is a coach or teacher (see the supra 112(b) rejection; the label “RIGHT” in FIG. 26 or “LEFT” in FIG. 27 is configured to aid the user in understanding which side when the authority user is a coach or teacher).
Regarding claim 8, Pierce discloses a left/right band consisting of: an elastic band having a top side, a bottom side, a first free end, and a second free end; hook and loop fasteners configured to join the first free end and the second free end; and, an identifier on the top side associated with a user's left side of the body or right side of the body (see supra rejection of claim 1).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce.
Regarding claim 2, Pierce does not explicitly disclose that the fastening member is hook and loop fasteners.
The examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that hook and loop fasteners was old and well known in the art before the effective filing date, as it provides tool-free, reusable, and versatile fastening with a low environmental impact, and therefore making them ideal for temporary applications like cable management and modular components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use well-known a comparison algorithm of video files based on a checksum because all the claimed elements were known in the art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. "common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S.-,82USPQ2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J HONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0993. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
THOMAS J. HONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/THOMAS J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715