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 .
Note that the effective filing date for this application is 10/17/22, as applicant’s claim for domestic benefit was not properly filed as outlined in the correspondences of 8/3/23 and 10/3/23 and first communicated to the applicant in the Office Action of 1/24/2024. Note also that a subsequent petition was filed under 37 CFR 1.181 on 12/20/23 to request a domestic benefit claim and this petition was dismissed by the Office on 2/28/2024 for reasons outlined in the decision.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 9/25/25 has been entered.
Claims 1-14 are amended, claims 15-20 are newly submitted, and claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 1, “secured by a wearer” should be changed to recite proper functional language as “configured to be secured by a wearer”.
For claim 19, “smart devices” should be changed to “smart device” for consistency with claim 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 wire of claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Figure 1 includes “1022” indicated as “wire” in the specification. However, there is no wire illustrated. The claims also don’t show the suspenders of claim 1 in the coverall inflated configuration. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 16 recites “wherein the inflation devices are placed at the ankles”. An apparatus claim may not recite structural details of the invention in combination with human anatomy. Any relationship of the structure with human anatomy should be recited functionally as consistent with the originally filed specification, e.g. : “wherein the inflation devices are configured to be placed at the ankles of the wearer”.
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.
Claims 10, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 10 recites “wherein the outer layer is made of a material adapted to keep the wearer warm for outdoor use in the winter.” The specification doesn’t provide a standard or disclosure of the material type or composition such that it can be determined the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claim 15 recites the wearer may have access to a plurality of outer layers for a single inflatable coveralls and can change the outer layer based on weather conditions or use, the structure and chair transformation features remain unaltered.
Claim 20 recites new matter as the chair has one or more chambers which can be filled with air to raise the individual.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 is unclear as it recites “air chambers formed when the inflatable coveralls is inflated”. Where are the air chambers located? What structures are forming the air chambers? The limitation recites the air chambers are only present when the coveralls are inflated.
For claim 5, it’s not clear what “the device” in line 2 of the claim is referring to as claim 5 recites “the triggering device” and “a smart device”. Which device is “the device” referencing?
For claim 6, the scope of the claim is unclear as the claim appears to depend from claim 1; however, the claim recites “distinct from claim 5” and it’s not clear how this language sets forth a claim limitation to further limit the inflatable coveralls. It appears that “distinct from claim 5” is not necessary, as the claim depends from claim 1 and recites different language from claim 5. The claim is treated as dependent from claim 1.
For claim 15, it’s not clear how the claim further limits the structure of the inflatable coveralls of claim 1 as the claim recites intended use of the inflatable coveralls by the wearer in the recitation “the wearer may have access to a plurality of outer layers for a single inflatable coveralls”. It’s not clear if the claim recites additional outer layer structures as “may have access to a plurality of outer layers” doesn’t recite further structure. What structures exist such that the wearer can change the outer layer based on weather conditions or use? The claim is interpreted as reciting an intended use of the inflatable coveralls. It’s also not clear what “the structure” and “the chair transformation features” and “a single inflatable coveralls” are referring to.
For claim 19, is “inflation devices” intending to refer back to the inflation devices of claim 1?
For claim 20, the scope of the claim is unclear as “the chair” is an intended function of the inflatable coveralls and the inflatable coveralls are previously recited in claim 1 as having “air chambers formed when the inflatable coveralls is inflated”. Therefore, a recitation of the chair as having one or more chambers which can be filled with air is unclear as the claim recites the invention as the inflatable coveralls having the function of transforming into a chair. There is also no claim antecedent for “the individual”. The claim is interpreted as air chambers formed when the inflatable coveralls is inflated.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: triggering device in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-13, 15-18, and 20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 a being unpatentable over Hyman (U.S. 3,665,517) in view of Cox (U.S. 2018/0345050) and Sides (U.S. 8,356,364) and Mazzarolo (U.S. 2015/0173433) and Lang (U.S. 2,431,811). Hyman discloses the invention substantially as claimed. For claim 1, Hyman teaches an inflatable coveralls 1 comprising at least two layers of wearable flexible material including an inner layer (front layer of cushion 17) of air-impermeable (plastic) material and an outer layer 12, air chambers 21, 22,26 that are formed when the coveralls are inflated, and fasteners 15 secured by a wearer. Hyman teaches the coveralls are inflated when the wearer blows through the tube 29 to inflate the chambers such that a chair is formed and the serves as a triggering device. The coveralls include pants and a shirt portion with sleeves forming structural components of the coveralls as in Hyman’s Figures 1 and 2. However, Hyman doesn’t teach the fasteners are configured to automatically release due to internal pressure during inflation without tearing the inflatable coveralls, the fasteners taking the form of magnets or hook and loop fasteners, pads disposed around hips and shoulders of the inflatable coveralls to reduce impact of a fall, inflation devices connected to the air chambers to inflate the inflatable coveralls, a triggering device connected to the inflation device and suspenders forming structural components of the inflatable coveralls. Cox teaches in par.69 the coverall garment 100 may incorporate various closure mechanisms 128 including magnetic fasteners, hook and loop, zippers, and button fasteners as equivalent fasteners. Substitution of Hyman’s zipper with magnetic or hook and loop fasteners which could release automatically due to air pressure without tearing the coveralls during inflation is considered as obvious particularly as the claim doesn’t provide further details of a specific orientation of the air chambers relative to a fasteners’ location and magnetic and hook and loop fasteners would perform equally well to secure portions of the coveralls together and are also capable of automatically releasing due to air pressure such as when a back air chamber is inflated and tension is exerted on the coverall material as the material expands to accommodate the inflation with a seat and backrest shown in Figure 5. Mazzarolo teaches providing a garment with protective elements/pads around shoulders of the garment 1 in combination with an inflatable lining 20 to reduce impact of a fall as in par.61 (“The inflatable lining 20 can also be provided with additional protective elements suitable for covering other body’s portion, like for example, shoulders and elbow.”) and therefore serves as a teaching that providing additional protective elements/pads at other parts of the body portion in combination with an inflatable lining protects the body such that providing pads around hips of the coveralls is considered as obvious since In re Harza, 274F.2d 669, 104 USPQ 378 (CCPA 160), established “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hyman’s coveralls to provide pads around hips and shoulders of the inflatable coveralls, as Mazzarolo teaches such modification is known in the art, particularly when combined with an inflatable inner layer, to protect the wearer’s body from impact of a fall. The hip pad of the modified garment is considered capable of functioning to act as a structural brace for the backrest and seat when the air chambers are inflated, particularly as the claim doesn’t recite a structural relationship between the hip pad and the air chambers and a hip pad is understood as positioned between the seat and back of the wearer. Sides teaches a hunting garment with an inflatable seat portion including a cushion/air chamber 26 that may be selectively inflated by an inflation device in the form of a can of compressed air or a pump 22 with a triggering device (valve) disclosed in col.2, lines 47-50, “In the alternative embodiment, in which inflation device 22 includes a valve, cushion 26 is inflated by one of, connecting a can of compressed air to the valve…” as in claims 1 and 3. Sides teaches that the wearer’s body is lifted or elevated off the ground such that Sides’ inflation devices are considered suitable to inflate the chambers of Hyman. Note that providing a plurality of inflation devices is considered as obvious as a design choice based on sizes and/or volume of the air chambers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute Hyman’s self-actuated inflation device with mechanically actuated inflation device/canisters of compressed air and triggering device as taught by Sides, as the compressed air and valve structure is an alternative inflation device known to perform equally well and which does not rely on the wearer’s respiratory function for operation.
Hyman’s modified coveralls with the triggering device includes, upon activation of the triggering device and inflation, the pants portion forming a seat, the shirt portion forming a backrest, and hip pad acting as a structural brace for the backrest and seat, thereby transforming the inflatable coveralls into a chair to enable a wearer who has fallen on a floor to get up without assistance from another person. Note the inflatable cushion in the seat of the coveralls as in Figure 2, also including a backrest portion 26 in an upper part of inflatable cushion 17, further discussed in col.3, lines 48-55. The Abstract discloses “The cushion has air tubes and pockets in a pattern contoured to fit the form of the legs and seat of the wearer.” Lang teaches it’s known in the art to provide coveralls with suspenders 1,2 as in Figure 1 to support the weight of the coveralls from the waist to give the wearer greater freedom in bending over and in arm movement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hyman’s coveralls to include suspenders as taught by Lang, to serve as a support structure for the weight of the coveralls garment such that the wearer has greater freedom of movement.
For claim 7, Hyman’s coveralls include sleeves, but doesn’t explicitly disclose the sleeves “inflate into armrests of the chair.” Claim 7 doesn’t provide further details of how the sleeves inflate, e.g. there is no air chamber or other inflatable element extending into the sleeves. Mazzarolo teaches an inflatable lining 20 extending into the sleeves as in Figure 1 such that the wearer’s arms are protected from injury during impact. Accordingly, forming the coveralls such that the sleeves inflate into armrests of the chair is considered obvious, as inflated sleeves are expected to support the wearer’s arms and may be inflated to any desired volume so as not to interfere with the wearer’s movement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hyman’s coveralls such that the sleeves are configured to inflate and function as armrests of the chair, as Mazzarolo teaches that it’s known in the art to provide an inflatable lining in sleeves for protection during impact.
For claim 8, Hyman’s modified coveralls’ outer layer is also considered as made of breathable material for summer as eyelets 14 are provided through the outer layer 12 to permit a small amount of air between the layers to exhaust to the atmosphere.
For claim 9, Hyman’s modified coveralls include the outer layer is made of water-proof material for outdoor use during rain (claim 5 of Hyman “the outer protective layer being substantially impervious to the penetration of water and moisture”).
For claim 10, Hyman’s modified coveralls include the outer layer is made of material to keep the wearer warm for outdoor use during winter, in another embodiment, as the outer layer is formed from nylon coated on the inside with elastomeric resin to provide protection from wind, rain, and snow and the protection would keep the wearer warm.
For claim 11, Hyman’s modified coveralls disclose the air-impermeable material is made up of balloons 21,22, which form air chambers when inflated, which are connected by a flexible tube 28.
Sides teaches a hunting garment with an inflatable seat portion that may be inflated by an inflation device-a can of compressed air or a pump. Mazzarolo teaches providing pads at shoulder areas to reduce impact of a fall as in par.61 and generally teaches that providing additional protective elements at other parts of the body portion protects the body; therefore providing a pad at a hip area is considered as obvious since In re Harza, 274F.2d 669, 104 USPQ 378 (CCPA 160), established “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hyman to provide the inflation devices taught by Sides, as a mechanical means of inflating the air chambers that doesn’t rely on the wearer’s physical condition or ability to inflate the air chambers. It also would have been obvious to modify Hyman to provide the pads at hips and shoulder areas as taught by Mazzarolo, as an equivalent coveralls structure known to include additional padded protection at these areas. It also would have been obvious to modify Hyman to provide the as a further decorative feature, the suspenders not disclosed as having a particular structure or spatial relationship with the other coveralls’ structure.
For claims 12 and 13, the modified Hyman ivo Cox teaches the fasteners are hook and loop fasteners or magnets adapted for automatic release during inflation as previously discussed.
For claim 15, the wearer of Hyman’s modified coveralls may have access to a plurality of outer layers for a single inflatable coveralls and can change the outer layer based on weather conditions or use, the structure and chair transformation features remaining unaltered. One of ordinary skill would recognize that a wearer may choose from additional outer layers in the form of a sweater or jacket to change the outer layer based on weather conditions or use.
For claim 16 as best understood, Hyman doesn’t teach the inflation devices are placed at the ankles. One of ordinary skill in the art could select from a finite number of places on the body to orient the inflation devices such that they don’t interfere with the movement of the wearer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hyman’s inflation devices to place at the ankles, as this limitation depends on the intended use of the garment as worn and placement of the inflation devices at the ankles would allow for full freedom of movement of the wearer’s upper body.
For claim 17, the modified Hyman teaches the air-impermeable material is light-weight material as plastic is considered as a light-weight material.
For claim 18, Hyman’s modified coveralls with the outer layer 12 is considered to provide strength to the inner layer against rupture and puncture as it overlies the inner layer and therefore serves as a barrier. It is noted that the claim doesn’t provide further details to the outer layer material.
For claim 20, as best understood, Hyman’s modified coveralls include the chair which has one or more chambers 21,22,26 which can be filled with air to raise the individual, as Hyman teaches chambers that can be filled with air to raise the individual.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman ‘517 in view of Cox ‘050 and Sides ‘364 and Mazzarolo ‘433 and Lang ‘811 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Atanasio (U.S. 2001/0049840). Hyman, as modified above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed including the air pumps, but doesn’t teach the air pumps are battery powered configured to inflate the inflatable coveralls to transform into the chair. Atanasio discloses a battery powered air pump as part of an inflatable air bag system. The battery powered feature allows for continued use of the air pump by replacing or recharging the batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hyman’s inflation devices to provide battery powered air pumps, as Atanasio teaches battery powered air pumps are known in the art for inflating air bags, with the batteries easily replaced when necessary.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman ‘511 in view of Cox ‘050 and Sides ‘364 and Mazzarolo ‘433 and Lang ‘811 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuan (U.S. 2018/0295903). Hyman discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Hyman doesn’t teach the inflation devices comprise chemical gas generators that produce gas through a triggered chemical reaction to inflate the inflatable coveralls into the chair. Yuan teaches a wearable pad with housing 1, air bag 5, and a gas-generating system with generator 4 as disclosed in par.52 for inflating the air bag. Under KSR rationale, the simple substitution of one known inflation device for another to obtain predictable results or the same end function, inflation of an air bag, supports a conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hyman to provide an inflation device that is a gas-generating system through a chemical reaction as an alternative inflation device for instantly inflating a wearable air bag for protective purposes.
Claims 5 and 6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman ‘511 in view of Cox ‘050 and Sides ‘364 and Mazzarolo ‘433 and Lang ‘811 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pozzer (U.S. 6,088,841). Hyman discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn’t teach the triggering device comprises a smart device configured for detecting the fall of the wearer, said device being operatively associated with inflation of the coveralls to transform the coveralls into the chair after a fall. Hyman doesn’t teach the triggering device comprises a smart device with voice recognition technologies, distinct from claim 5, for detecting the fall of the wearer and activating inflation. Pozzer teaches a wearable garment 1 with inflatable air bags 3,4 that are triggered by a voice recognition system as in claim 1 of Pozzer (“device is controlled by the voice of the wearer to be protected by means of a microphone and electronic gear box which emits the signal emitted by the microphone, said signal initiating the deflagration of substantial amount of propellant”). Pozzer discloses in col.3, lines 54+ the smart devices (cell telephones) having voice recognition technologies as when a person wearing the coveralls audibly conveys a state of falling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hyman to provide the coveralls with a triggering device which is a smart devices for detecting the fall of the wearer and the smart device with voice recognition technologies as Pozzer teaches it is known in the art to trigger inflatable air bags by a smart device or smart device voice recognition system as alternative means for actuating inflation that do not require manual operation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman ‘511 in view of Cox ‘050 and Sides ‘364 and Mazzarolo ‘433 and Lang ‘811 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Warden (U.S. 2006/0288464). Hyman discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Hyman doesn’t teach the triggering device is a switch that is connected by wire to the inflation devices and is configured to activate inflation of the coveralls to transform into the chair. Warden teaches air chamber 8 as part of a personal protection device, the inflation of the air chamber 8 occurring via a triggering device that is a switch (release valve) connected by wire 21 to the inflation device 40 and configured to activate inflation of the air chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hyman’s coveralls such that the triggering device is a switch that is connected by wire to the inflation devices and configured to activate inflation of the coveralls to transform into the chair, as an alternate inflation configuration.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman ‘511 in view of Cox ‘050 and Sides ‘364 and Mazzarolo ‘433 and Lang ‘811 and Pozzer, as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Lopez Yunez et al. (U.S. 2016/0183607). Hyman discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn’t teach the smart devices are integrated with inflation devices using wireless technologies. Lopez Yunez teaches a garment with air chambers 32,34,36,38 inflated via smart devices integrated with inflation devices 42 using wireless technologies as the inflation devices ejects compressed air into chambers 32,34,36,38 upon receipt of a signal from the controller 42 that a fall event is occurring. Paragraph 58 discloses the communications between the various components of the airbag assembly can be through a wired or wireless communication such as Bluetooth communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hyman such that the smart devices are integrated with inflation devices using wireless technologies as taught by Lopez Yunez, as this configuration is known in the art and allows for programming of the controller to result in inflation at a certain time or controlled inflation within a certain timeframe.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has not provided any remarks regarding the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Primary Examiner Katherine Moran at (571) 272-4990 (phone). Please note that any internet communication directed to katherine.moran@uspto.gov requires prior submission of an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439). The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and alternating Fridays.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Khoa Huynh, may be reached at (571) 272-4888. The official and after final fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273-8300. General information regarding this application and
questions directed to matters of form and procedures may be directed to the PTO Contact
Center/Inventors Assistance Center at (800) 786-9199/571-272-1000. Information regarding the status
of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For questions on
access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free).
Since PTO employees cannot provide legal advice on an application, applicant is advised to secure the services of a registered patent attorney or agent to draft and prosecute a patent application.
Please be advised of the following assistance available from the Office to help pro se applicants:
Pro-Se Assistance Program provides answers to patent-related questions and assistance in filing applications to applicants who file patent applications without the assistance of a registered patent attorney or agent. Call (1-866-767-3848) or Email: innovationdevelopment@uspto.gov
Patent Pro Bono program is a nationwide network of independently operated regional programs that match volunteer patent professionals with financially under-resourced inventors and small business for the purpose of securing patent protection. Further details are available via Email: probono@uspto.gov
Inventor Assistance Center (1-800-PTO-9199) provides patent assistance and information to the public by answering general questions and providing assistance with forms and details of filing a patent application.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732