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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner notes as a formality only that US 4,671,775 to Hill is listed with an issue date of 1978-06-09. The correct date is 1987-06-09.
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 “multiple layers of a second buoyant member with increasing length from outside to inside” (claim 6) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). As depicted in current figure 4, all layers are shown to be similar length. 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 § 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 and 4 (and all claims that depend therefrom) 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 lines 5 and 9 recite that the “circle units (are) connected in sequence and parallel.” These limitations are unclear. It is not apparent what the “sequence” signifies, or how the units could be connected in parallel. In fact, the figures depict the circle units connected end to end, one connected to the other, which would be a series connection. For the purposes of this action, the circle units will be interpreted as depicted in the figures.
Claim 4 line 5 recites “an upper end and a lower end of said baffle extend out of said zipper belts…” It is unclear how the baffle extends out of the zipper. This will be interpreted as a length of material that covers the zipper from the inside.
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.
Claims 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger US 2008/0160849.
PNG
media_image1.png
331
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Steger Figures 1 and 2
Regarding claim 1, Steger teaches a comfortable buoyancy garment 10, comprising:
a main body 20, said main body has a first connecting portion 60 and a second connecting portion 70 at two armpits thereof respectively;
a first arm circle 30, movably connected with said first connecting portion, adjacent said first arm circle unit is movably connected;
a second arm circle 40, movably connected with said second connecting portion, adjacent said second arm circle unit is movably connected;
said first arm circle units 30 and said second arm circle units 40 are both internally disposed with a semi-annular buoyant member 31, 41; said semi-annular buoyant member includes multiple layers of a second buoyant member 32-37, 42-47; a second buoyant member layer is wrapped on an outer side of a second buoyant member layer; a stepped structure is formed at both ends of said semi-annular buoyant member, and an open structure (the arm hole) is formed between said both ends of said semi-annular buoyant member.
PNG
media_image2.png
195
387
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Steger Figure 4
Steger does not teach that the arm circles comprise at least two of an arm circle units, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add a second arm circle to both sides in order to increase buoyancy or give the garment the desired appearance, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to divide the arm circles into two or more units in order to improve flexibility or aesthetic appearance, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Steger does not explicitly teach that the layers increase in length from outside to inside. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the layers increasing in length from outside to inside or of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to give the arm circles the desired overall shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 7, Steger teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Steger also teaches that said main body 20 is a vest structure, said main body has a front accommodating cavity (21a area), a left-rear accommodating cavity (21b area), and a right-rear accommodating cavity (21c area); said front accommodating cavity, said left-rear accommodating cavity, and said right-rear accommodating cavity all contain at least one of a first buoyancy member. Note that without further limitation, the front, left-rear and right-rear cavities are arbitrary divisions of the main body, all of which contain at least one buoyancy member.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to divide the main body into three units in order to improve flexibility or aesthetic appearance, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 8, Steger teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Steger also teaches that said main body 20 is made of polyester cloth, and said buoyancy members 21, 31, 41 are made of foam [0017].
Regarding claim 9, Steger teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Steger also teaches that an opening structure (the arm hole) is formed between both ends of said semi-annular buoyant member 31, 41, said opening structure corresponds to said outside of a user’s arm (as it fits around a user’s arm).
Regarding claim 10, Steger teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Steger as modified also teaches that:
said number of said first arm circle units and that of said second arm circle units are both two;
a head end of one of said first arm circle units 30 is sewn with a tail end of the other of said first arm circle units sewn with said first connecting portion 60;
a head end of one of said second arm circle units 40 is sewn with a tail end of the other of said second arm circle units sewn with said second connecting portion 70.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger US 2008/0160849 in view of Lucius US 4,799,908 and Alfstad US 2011/0138524.
Regarding claim 2, Steger teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Steger does not teach a zippered closure or a fixing piece.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 3- Alfstad Figure 2)]
PNG
media_image3.png
278
168
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lucius teaches a buoyancy garment comprising a zipper 18 having two zipper belts and a zipper head; said main body is a connecting structure having a first connecting edge and a second connecting edge; said two zipper belts are arranged along said first connecting edge and said second connecting edge respectively; and said zipper head can close said two zipper belts to connect said first connecting edge with said second connecting edge. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the buoyancy garment of Steger with a zippered closure as taught by Lucius in order to connect the garment more completely (along a greater length) or to ensure that it cannot be released with one click motion.
Alfstad teaches a garment comprising two zipper belts 20 and a zipper head; said main body having a first connecting edge and a second connecting edge; said two zipper belts are arranged along said first connecting edge and said second connecting edge respectively; said zipper head can close said two zipper belts to connect said first connecting edge with said second connecting edge; said first connecting edge is fixedly provided with a fixing piece 22 with a connecting end, said fixing piece can be folded and passed across said two zipper belts and said connecting end is detachably connected with said second connecting edge, when said two zipper belts are completely closed, said fixing piece lies below said zipper head to prevent said zipper head to move downward. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the buoyancy garment of Steger with a fixing piece as taught by Alfstad in order to prevent the zipper from being inadvertently opened and protect other surfaces from being scratched by the zipper.
Regarding claim 5, Steger, Lucius and Alfstad teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Neither Steger nor Alfstad teach that the fixing piece is in a semi-circular shape with a chord edge and an arc edge, a length of said chord edge is 9cm-13cm, and a distance from said chord edge to said arc edge is 4-8cm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the fixing piece semi-circular or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to provide the desired gripping surface or appearance. 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.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make a length of said chord edge is 9cm-13cm, and a distance from said chord edge to said arc edge is 4-8cm in order to provide a flap that is easy to locate and use, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger US 2008/0160849 in view of Lucius US 4,799,908, Alfstad US 2011/0138524 and Ragot US 7,096,506.
Regarding claim 4, Steger, Lucius and Alfstad teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Neither Steger nor Lucius teach a baffle, one side thereof is connected with said second connecting edge, said other side thereof extends out of said zipper belts, said baffle is arranged in an inside of said zipper belts, and said upper end and said lower end of said baffle extends out of said zipper belts, said baffle and said fixing piece are oppositely arranged.
Ragot teaches a garment which comprises a baffle 46, one side thereof is connected with a second connecting edge 16b, the other side thereof extends out of zipper belts 44, said baffle is arranged in an inside of said zipper belts, and said upper end and said lower end of said baffle extends out of said zipper belts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the buoyancy garment as taught by Steger and Lucius with a baffle as taught by Ragot in order to prevent the zipper from scratching the user. As modified, the baffle and fixing piece are oppositely arranged.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger US 2008/0160849 in view of McMahon US 5,588,892, and also in view of Lucius US 4,799,908, Alfstad US 2011/0138524 and/or Ragot US 7,096,506 where applicable.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7-9, Steger, Lucius, Alfstad and/or Ragot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above. In an alternate interpretation, Steger does not teach that an open structure is formed between both ends of the semi-annular buoyant members. McMahon teaches a comfortable buoyancy garment 10 in which the arm circles comprise semi-annular buoyant members 36, 38 which comprise an open structure formed between both ends. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the buoyancy garment as taught by Steger with buoyancy members in the arms that are not complete circles as taught by McMahon in order to “allow the wearer to have unrestricted freedom of movement of the arms when the arms are placed at the sides of the wearer's torso” (column 6, lines 23-26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the drawing objection to figure 4, the applicant argues that because the member buoyant layers 302a-302d do not line up (in a curled configuration), this confirms that the inner layers are longer than the outer layers. The examiner disagrees, and points out two issues with this argument:
First, the ends do not line up because like the outer lanes of a roadway or outer tracks on a record, the outer layers must travel further than inner layers. For all layers to line up (in a curled configuration), each layer would have to be longer than the layers inside it.
Second, this exact effect is shown in Steger’s device. If it proves the recited configuration in the current invention, then it would also prove that Steger is the same.
PNG
media_image4.png
277
225
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
326
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 4- Steger Figure 4 vs. Current Figure 4
Moreover, while drawings are not assumed to be to scale, if current figure 4 is printed out and each layer is physically measured, they are within about 1% of each other in length. The examiner is still of the position that figure 4 does not depict the invention as claimed.
The applicant cites much of Steger, then states “those skilled in the art must not violate Steger’s records to add a second pad” (page 34). As best understood, the applicant seems to be arguing that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, however the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the suggested modifications to Steger (number of arm floats and/or divided floats) and their advantages would be easily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the semi-annular buoyant member are not complete circles) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As detailed above, Steger’s arm circles are open at the top and bottom, meeting the claim as written.
However, after seeing the intent of the applicant’s claim language, an alternative rejection has been made in view of McMahon, which teaches that arm circles to not cover the entire arm.
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 Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615