DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
An amendment was filed by applicant on 02/26/2026.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are amended.
No claims are added or canceled.
Claims 1-8 are remaining in the application.
The amended Abstract and Specification are accepted, unless otherwise noted.
Specification
The Specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The newly claimed “means for activating” (claim 3) is not found in nor disclosed in the Specification as newly recited in the claims; therefore, the Specification lacks proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. Claim limitations should be consistent with features found in and disclosed in the Specification. In addition, terminology/nomenclature should be consistent throughout the disclosure, including the Abstract, Specification and Claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
No claim status identifiers are provided for each as claim as is required.
The amendment is therefore also considered non-compliant.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
10. Claims 1-8 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, regards as the invention.
11. The claimed features “the deployable flotation device” (should be -the internally-stored, deployable flotation device), “the wearer” (should be -the user-), “the wristband” (should be -the flexible wristband-), “its inflation” (should be -inflation-), “the deployable floatation device” (should be -the internally-stored, deployable flotation device), “the compacted plastic sac” (should be -the compacted, folded plastic sac-), “the means for activating” (should be -a means for activating-), “the outer cover” (should be -an outer cover-), and “the release” (should be -release-), for independent claim 1 and subsequent dependent claims 2-5, lack sufficient antecedent basis as recited in the claims. Similar applies to the claimed features: “the general form”, “the letter”, “the edges”, “the neck”, “the wrist”, “the same dimensions”, “the exterior”, “the second end”, “the exterior surface”, “the compacted plastic sac”, “its associated rip cord”, “the entry”, “the orifices”, “the wings”, “the generation” and “the wristband”, for independent claim 6 and subsequent dependent claims 7 & 8.
12. The use of the pronoun “its” does not make clear the feature(s) being referred to.
13. Use of quotation marks does not make clear that contained within such is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 11623717 B2 (Azriel et al.), in view of D2: WO 2020208636 A1 (Shoham et al). Regarding claim 1, D1 discloses a flexible wristband (device can be worn for example on the wrist similar to wristwatch; see col. 12, lines 28-29 and Figs. 8A-8C) with the deployable floatation device (plastic inflation bag) [84], the flotation device becoming inflated when a user wearing the flexible wristband manually activates the deployable flotation device while immersed in a body of water, the floatation device, by reason of its inflation, inherently becoming a device providing buoyancy to the wearer while the wearer is immersed in the body of water. D1 does not explicitly disclose that the floatation device is internally-stored. However, D2 discloses a wristband floatation device that includes a protective cover [17] over a floatation device (inflatable bag) [14] such that the bag is internally-stored under and protected by the cover [17] until deployed for floatation. Providing a cover with D1 as taught by D2 would protect the deployable floatation bag of D1 that would be internally-stored within the wristband device and would make the device more durable, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 2, such a combination would provide a plastic sac (bag) within a chamber (enclosure provided by the cover). In addition, D1 discloses the claimed powdered acidic and alkaline substances (reactants) that can be used with water to release a gas (can be carbon dioxide gas as further disclosed) that inflates the bag; see col. 4, lines 50-60. Further, D2 discloses that its inflatable bag can be folded into any design-mandated shape, such that it would not present any significant impediment to the swimmer when undeployed. Providing such features, including a folded sac, would facilitate compact storage of various bag sizes and shapes suitable for floatation as desired, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 3, D1 discloses that the device may be conveniently and quickly activated by a user with a manual trigger, such as a handle, a cord, or a similar device (see col. 5, lines 33-36). In addition, D1 discloses an activation handle and pull cord for Fig. 8A. In view of the foregoing, it would have been considered 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 to provide such features to facilitate function, durability and operation with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 11623717 B2 (Azriel et al.), in view of D2: WO 2020208636 A1 (Shoham et al), and further in view of D3: KR 101389452 B1 (김영길). Regarding claim 4, D1 in view of D2 disclose all claimed features as indicated previously, except further having a Bluetooth-enabled transmitter affixed to the outer cover of the wristband as claimed. However, D3 discloses such feature with a transmitter [100] (which can be blue-tooth) connected to the cover of a lifejacket to transmit a distress position to facilitate rescue of the person in the lifejacket. In view of the foregoing, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such feature to facilitate rescue with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 11623717 B2 (Azriel et al.), in view of D2: WO 2020208636 A1 (Shoham et al), and further in view of D4: GB 2568680 A (Fitzgerald). Regarding claim 5, D1 in view of D2 disclose all claimed features as indicated previously, except further having a RFID-functioning device affixed to the outer cover of the wristband as claimed. However, D4 discloses such feature with a tracking device such as a radio-frequency identity tag (which can be RFID) for tracking purposes connected to a flotation safety device that includes a cover (outer surface) [8]. D4 does not disclose where the RFID tag is affixed; however, it would have been obvious to attach such feature to the cover [8] for simplicity, ease of attachment and to facilitate intended use, as would have been recognized to one of ordinary skill in the art. In view of the foregoing, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such feature to facilitate tracking with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best understood by the examiner, claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been fully considered but are essentially moot due to applicant’s amended claims and the resulting new and/or modified grounds of rejection presented in this Final Office Action. Nevertheless, the following comments are provided for applicant’s consideration. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In response to applicant's arguments against the prior art references individually, one cannot show non obviousness by attacking prior art references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of prior art references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is also noted that applicant in the attached comments refers to Exhibits 1-4 that applicant indicates are attached to applicant’s reply; however, no such attached Exhibits 1-4 are included with applicant’s reply.
Conclusion
21. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7947. The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel J. Morano can be reached on (571) 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 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 more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
23. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel V Venne/
Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3615
03/09/2026