DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on August 14th, 2023 in which ten claims are presented for examination.
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 .
Examiner Notes
At the outset, it is noted that the claims have a significant number of non-art-related objections and rejections. Review is suggested of the revision below of the instant claims— such a revision is not a statement that the suggested claim format is free of any and all non-art-related objections and rejections, let alone being free of any art-related or other rejections, and also does not indicate allowability or necessarily the exact scope originally disclosed, should the suggestions be accepted. However, the suggestion is presented in an attempt to promote compact prosecution.
Especially in light of the significant issues, the claims will be rejected under U.S.C. 102/103 as best understood, such as based on the suggested revision.
1. A clothing protector apron comprising:
an apron front with an upper section, a middle section, and a lower section;
the upper section with an adjustable neck band with a hook fastener and at least one lock fastener for attaching to a neck of an individual and protecting a shoulder area of the individual;
the middle section with spill control ribs and side elongated barrier strips configured to control a flow of liquid and food debris from getting onto an individual's clothing;
the lower section with a sturdy debris catching pocket attached to the apron front formed by an outer surface wall, two side walls and a bottom panel to catch and retain the liquid and food debris from leaking on the individual's clothing and/or a seat of a vehicle.
2. The clothing protector apron of Claim 1, further comprising wherein the sturdy debris catching pocket of the clothing protector apron has a pocket opening with a lower section reinforced with three heavy-duty pocket support ribs to prevent the wide pocket from collapsing when filled.
3. The clothing protector apron of Claim 1, wherein the spill control ribs are extending vertically along the clothing protector apron in a linear rib pattern from a top of the middle section to just above the lower section.
4. The clothing protector apron of Claim 3, wherein the spill control ribs each have a curved rib pattern incorporated into the apron front middle section ending just above the pocket opening.
5. The clothing protector apron of Claim 3, wherein two of the spill control ribs form a concave rib groove that can control the speed and direction of the liquid and food debris into the sturdy pocket.
6. The clothing protector apron of Claim 1, wherein the hook fastener and the at least one lock fastener are configured to transition from an unattached position of the hook fastener and the at least one lock fastener into an attached position of the hook fastener and the at least one lock fastener by inserting the hook fastener into the at least one lock fastener.
7. The clothing protector apron of Claim 1, wherein the side elongated barrier strips are located on both sides of the apron front,
wherein at least one of the strips comprise a contoured barrier edge configured to prevent an excess of the liquid and food debris from spilling over.
8. The clothing protector apron of Claim 1, wherein the adjustable neck band before being attached to the individual's neck can be adjusted by relocating the hook fastener into a second one of the at least one lock fasteners located on the upper section to fit the neck.
9. The clothing protector apron of Claim 1, wherein the apron is made of a waterproof non-stick silicone material.
Claim Numbering
Examiner notes that two different claims have been labeled Claim 3. As such, though the instant claim numbering only goes to Claim 9, there are 10 claims. However, examiner notes that the first “Claim 3” (“The sturdy pocket of claim 2, having a pocket bottom”, etc) is redundant of Claim 1 and therefore has been removed in the suggestion of the examiner notes above. Nevertheless, in the instant rejection, the two claims will indicated as “first” Claim 3 and “second” Claim 3.
As a courtesy, the claims will be prosecuted on the merits. However, future issues may warrant a notice of non-compliance.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following:
Fig. 13 seems to have inadvertently switched the reference numerals for 16 and 17; in other words, current 16 should be 17, and current 17 should be 16
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“Second” Claim 3 indicates the apron has a “linear rib pattern”; however, Claim 4, which depends on Claim 3, indicates that the apron has a “curved rib pattern”; pending clarification of the 112(b) rejections, the drawings do not clearly lend support to these two claims
“Second” Claim 3 indicates that the spill control ribs are extending vertically; pending clarification of the 112(b) rejections, the drawings do not clearly lend support to this claim
Claim 7 indicates “contoured barrier edge”; it is unclear whether the contour is convex, concave, beveled, or some other shape based on the drawings, such as Fig. 13;
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
[041] “apron back 23” is not in the drawings
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the same reference character(s) have been used to designate different element(s).
[044] “lower section 13” in [044] is of the pocket 14; however, “lower section 13” was already utilized to describe a section of the apron in [040] and therefore cannot be utilized again for another element; examiner recommends deleting 13 in [044]
[046] indicates 34 is a “linear rib pattern” wherein [047] indicates 34 is a “curved rib pattern”; pending clarification, examiner may recommend deleting 34 for “linear rib pattern”
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following:
At the outset, the abstract exceeds the maximum word count (150 words), and has a plethora of typographical errors and redundancy. For the sake of compact prosecution, the following is suggested, but is not a statement that the suggestion is free of any and all objections and rejections. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
PNG
media_image1.png
348
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner notes that the specification is incorrectly labeled “Provisional Patent Application.” Especially based on the fees submitted and a submitted oath, the specification should be labeled “Non-Provisional Patent Application”, or the label removed
[020] “More Specifically” should read “More specifically”
[026] “Fig. 1; comprises of” should read “Fig. 1 and comprises”
[027] “there apparel” should read “their apparel”
[028] “there apparel” should read “their apparel”
[030] “Fig. 5; comprises” should read “Fig. 5 and comprises”
[032] “Fig. 7; comprises” should read “Fig. 7 and comprises”
[037] “Fig. 12; comprises” should read “Fig. 12 and comprises”
[040] “for control the flow” should read “for controlling the flow”
[040] “dropped solids and liquid guiding the debris into the lower section 13 sturdy pocket 14 catching and retain the liquid” should read “dropped solids and liquid and guiding the debris into a lower section 13 with a sturdy pocket 14 catching and retaining the liquid”
[042] “More specifically, as shown in Fig. 3 is” should delete “as shown in”
[043] “As generally shown in Fig. 4 is” should read “As generally shown, Fig. 4 is”
[043] “showing how the sturdy pocket 14, resting” should read “showing the sturdy pocket 14 resting”
[044] “As best seen in Fig. 5 is” should delete “As best seen in”
[045] “invention Fig. 6, is” should read “invention, Fig. 6 is” to correctly place the comma
[046] “moreover, as shown in Fig. 7 is” should read “Moreover, Fig. 7 is”
[047] “As best seen in Fig. 8 is” should delete “As best seen in”
[048] “As generally shown in Fig. 9 is” should read “As generally shown, Fig. 9 is”
[049] “More specifically, as shown in Fig. 10 is” should delete “as shown in”
[050] “moreover, as shown in Fig. 11” should read “Moreover, Fig. 11 is”
[051] “As best seen in Fig. 12” should delete “As best seen in”
[051] “elongated barrier strips 17” should read “elongated barrier strip 17”
[052] “As best seen in Fig. 13” should delete “As best seen in”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 2, “first” claim 3, “second” claim 3, Claims 4-9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 2 before “upper” delete “a” and substitute –an—
Claim 1 Line 2 after “hook” add –fastener—to provide antecedent basis for Claim 6 Line 2 “the hook fastener”
Claim 1 Line 2 “to the to the neck” should read “to a neck”
Claim 1 Line 3 before “shoulder” delete “the” and substitute –a—for proper antecedent basis
Claim 1 Line 4 before “spill control ribs” delete “an”
Claim 1 Line 4 before “flow” delete “the” for proper antecedent basis
Claim 1 Line 5 delete “your clothes” and substitute –the clothing—
Claim 1 Line 6 before “apron front” delete “the” and substitute –an—for proper antecedent basis
Claim 1 Line 8 before “clothing” delete “individual”
Claim 1 Line 8 delete “the seat of the vehicle” and substitute –a seat of a vehicle—for proper antecedent basis
Claim 2 Line 2 after “apron” delete the comma
There exists a “second” Claim 3
“second Claim 3 Lines 1-2 “wherein the spill control ribs located in the middle section of the clothing protector apron” is redundant with Claim 1 Line 4 and is recommended to be deleted; nevertheless--
“second” Claim 3 Line 2 after “section” delete comma
“second” Claim 3 Line 2 after “apron” add comma
Second “Claim 3” Line 3 delete “the top” and substitute –a top of the—
Claim 4 “Spill control ribs….has” needs review for “ribs have”
Claim 5 “Spill control ribs….has” needs review for “ribs have”
Claim 5 Line 1 before “speed” delete “the” and substitute –a—for proper antecedent basis
Claim 5 is missing a period
Claim 6 “in the attached position” should read “configured to be in an attached position” for proper antecedent basis for the position, but also to indicate that the attached position is a functional configuration and is not a permanent structure
Claim 6 Line 2 “mean of the interaction” should read “means of an interaction”
Claim 6 Line 3 “securing the present invention” should read “securing the apron”
Claim 6 Line 3 delete “individual” and substitute –individual’s—
Claim 7 Line 2 before “middle” add –the—
Claim 7 Line 2 before “contoured” delete “an” and substitute –a—
Claim 8 Line 2 after “hook” add –fastener—
Claim 9 is missing a comma after “claim 1”
Claim 9 before “is made of” add –wherein the apron--
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, “first” Claim 3, “second” Claim 3”, Claims 4-9 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “any” in Claim 1 Line 4, such as in “any liquid” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The metes and bounds of the term are too broad, in that the limitations claim the ability to control any and all and every liquid, let alone any and all and every food debris as claimed. The application clearly discloses a silicone material, wherein silicone will not withstand any liquid (ex. lava, hydrochloric acid), let alone food debris. It is recommended to delete the term.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sturdy pocket debris catcher" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, the term is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 Line 6 provided antecedent basis for “a debris catching pocket.” As best understood, Claim 1 Line 2 refer to the same pocket, but it is unclear whether Claim 2 is now trying to further narrow the pocket of Claim 1 by indicating it is sturdy, or if “sturdy” should have been previously established in Claim 1.
Furthermore, the term "sturdy" in Claim 2 Line 1 for “sturdy pocket” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "sturdy" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Although silicone material for the apron has been disclosed, no specific method steps have been disclosed such that the pocket is inherently also of silicone. As such, it is unclear how the metes and bounds of the term should be interpreted. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met inasmuch as the pocket exists and therefore capable of being sturdy.
Relatedly, the term “heavy-duty” in Claim 2 Lines 2-3 for “heavy-duty pocket support ribs” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "heavy-duty" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Although silicone material for the apron has been disclosed, no specific method steps have been disclosed such that the pocket support ribs are inherently also of silicone. As such, it is unclear how the metes and bounds of the term should be interpreted. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met inasmuch as the pocket ribs exist and therefore are capable of being heavy-duty and supportive.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the wide pocket" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, the term is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 Line 6 provided antecedent basis for “a debris catching pocket.” As best understood, Claim 1 Line 3 refer to the same pocket, but it is unclear whether Claim 2 is now trying to further narrow the pocket of Claim 1 by indicating it is wide, or if “wide” should have been previously established in Claim 1, or some other explanation.
Relatedly, the term “wide” in Claim 2 Line 3 for “wide pocket” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "wide" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met inasmuch as the pocket has a width.
The term “The sturdy pocket …having a pocket bottom…pocket outer surface wall” in “first” Claim 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. As best understood, these elements are pocket 14 with “outer surface wall (33), two sides walls (20)” which were already established in Claim 1 Lines 6-7, on which Claim 3 eventually depends. As such, it is unclear “first” Claim 3 inadvertently was redundant, if Claim 3 was meant to a separate independent claim, or some other explanation. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, Claim 3 will be considered met inasmuch as Claim 1 is met, and that the dependency is correct.
“First” Claim 3 recites the limitation "the side wall panels" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 Line 7 provided antecedent basis for “two side walls”. As best understood, “first” Claim 3 and Claim 1 refer to the same element, so it is unclear whether Claim 3 is now trying to further narrow the walls to be panels, or if panels should’ve been previously established in Claim 1, or some other explanation. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met inasmuch as Claim 1 is met.
The term "just above" in “second” Claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "just above" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term "the lower section" in “second” Claim 3 Line 4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether this is of the apron (Claim 1 Line 6) or of the “pocket opening” in Claim 2 Lines 1-2. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “of the apron.”
The dependency of Claim 4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the claim depends on “first” Claim 3 or “second” claim 3. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, especially in light of the 112(d) rejection for “first” Claim 3, the dependency of Claim 4 is interpreted as being on “second” Claim 3.
The term “linear rib pattern” in “second” Claim 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the drawing objections, it is unclear how the pattern 34 is linear. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met inasmuch as linear is any “line” and can be straight or curved.
Claim 4 “ribs….has a curved rib pattern” in Claim 4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 4 seems to depend on “second” Claim 3, which established a linear rib pattern. Even if Claim 4 depended on “first” Claim 3, nothing in the specification seems to support two different embodiments. As such, it is unclear whether the issue is dependency, whether the issue is unclear disclosure, whether the interpretation is that the pattern is a line with at least one curve, or some other explanation. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met by any line with at least one curvature.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the apron front middle section" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 Line 4 established “a middle section” of the apron, while Claim 1 Line 6 established an apron front. However, nowhere in the previous claims has antecedent basis been provided for a middle section of the apron front, which is what the limitation recites. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered as though it were established the apron had an apron front with an upper, middle, and lower section.
The term "just above" in Claim 4 Line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "just above" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The dependency of Claim 5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the claim depends on “first” Claim 3 or “second” claim 3. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, especially in light of the 112(d) rejection for “first” Claim 3, the dependency of Claim 5 is interpreted as being on “second” Claim 3.
The term “any” in Claim 5 Line 2, such as in “any liquid” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The metes and bounds of the term are too broad, in that the limitations claim the ability to control any and all and every liquid, let alone any and all and every solid materials as claimed. The application clearly discloses a silicone material, wherein silicone will not withstand any liquid (ex. lava, hydrochloric acid), let alone solid materials. It is recommended to delete the term “any”, and to further amend to read “the liquid and food debris” for consistency with Claim 1 Lines 4-5.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the sturdy pocket" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 established “debris catching pocket”, while Claim 2 established “sturdy pocket debris catcher”, while “first” Claim 3 established “sturdy pocket” (but in the preamble). As best understood, the terms are the same. As such, it is unclear if Claim 5 is meant to depend on “second” claim 3 and therefore be further narrowing to indicate that the pocket is sturdy. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met inasmuch as a pocket exists and is therefore capable of being sturdy.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the hook locking device" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 Line 2 establishes antecedent basis for “hook and lock fastener.” As best understood, the terms are same. As such, it is unclear why the terms are inconsistent.
The entirety of Claim 6 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. As best understood, there is missing recitation or missing grammatical punctuation or lack of clarity as to why the terms “hook and lock fastener” and “hook locking device” are different structural terms. How can the hook locking device be secured in the unattached position and thereby present an attached position? How does this occur before being attached? Is the “attached” referring to the individual or to the hook and lock? Is this claim claiming a method of use, met by product by process? For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, Claim 6 will be interpreted as met inasmuch as a male and female fastener are capable in being in unattached and attached positions.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the elongated barrier strips" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 Line 4 establishes “side barriers.” As best understood, the terms are referring to the same element. As such, it is unclear if Claim 7 is trying to further narrow from Claim 1 by indicating the barriers are elongated strips, or if this should have been established in Claim 1. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, Claim 7 will be considered met inasmuch as Claim 1 is met.
The term “an elongated barrier strip” in Claim 7 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear why the antecedent basis is different from “elongated barrier strips” in Claim 7 Line 1. Is the claim meaning to indicate that only ONE of the strips in Line 1 has the contour? For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met inasmuch as ONE of the strips has a contour.
The term “the elongated barrier strips both sides” in Claim 7 Line 1 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It seems that there is missing disclosure in the claim limitation between the term “strips” and “both sides”. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered “on both sides of the apron front.”
The term “contoured” in Claim 7 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the drawing objections, the metes and bounds of the term are unclear. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met by any shape.
The term “excess liquid and solid materials” in Claim 7 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this is meant to be different from “any liquid and food debris” in Claim 1 Lines 4-5. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be considered the same.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "any of the locking fasteners" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 Line 2 provides antecedent basis for “hook and lock fastener,” which indicates a single lock fastener. No antecedent basis is provided for a plurality of lock fasteners, for the hook fastener to therefore connect to any of the lock fasteners. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met with a plurality of locking fasteners, and as though the claim(s) had provided proper antecedent basis.
The term “any” in “fit any size neck” in Claim 8 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The metes and bounds of the term are too broad, in that the limitations claim the ability to fit every neck that has, or ever will, exist, such that the metes and bounds of claim cannot be ascertained. Examiner recommends deleting the term.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) of “first” Claim 3, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The preambles of “first” Claim 3 and Claims 4 and 5, cite a different preamble from the claims upon which they depend. Specifically, Claim 3 depends on Claims 1, 2, which has the preamble of “clothing protector apron.” As such, it is improper for the preamble of “first” Claim 3 to read “The sturdy pocket.” Similar, Claims 4 and 5 depend on Claim 3, which depends on Claim 1, 2, which has the preamble aforementioned. As such, it is improper for the preambles of Claims 4 and 5 to read “Spill control ribs.” Applicant is suggested to, at the least, amend the preamble of each of “first” claim 3, claim 4, and claim 5 to recite “The clothing protector apron” as one potential remedy.
Furthermore, “first” Claim 3 does not narrow from Claims 1 and 2, on which “first” Claim 3 depends. The structures of first Claim 3 “sturdy pocket having a pocket bottom at one end, pocket outer surface wall together with the side walls panels and reinforced by the pocket support ribs to create the pocket opening” is already disclosed in Claim 1 Lines 6-7 “pocket …formed by an outer surface wall, two side walls and a bottom panel” and Claim 2 “sturdy pocket….reinforced with three heavy-duty pocket support ribs.” As such, it is recommended to cancel “first” Claim 3.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “mean of the interaction of inserting” in claim 6 Line 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
As best understood, Claim(s) 1, 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arseneault (USPN 2569915) in view of Wang (CN 219323183) and DeStefano (USPN 7469425).
Regarding Claim 1, Arseneault teaches a clothing protector apron (it is noted 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; see Figs. 1, 4, 5 title "child's bib"; Arseneault teaches the bib which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of protecting clothing as an apron) comprising:
an upper section with a neck band for attaching to the neck of an individual and protecting the shoulder area (see Fig. 1 for upper section; Col. 2 Line 18 "neck tape 21"; Arseneault teaches the neck band which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of attaching to the neck and protecting as recited);
a middle section with an spill control ribs controlling the flow of any liquid and food debris from getting onto your clothes (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Fig. 1; see Figs. 1, 4, 5; Col. 2 Lines 3-10 "front of the device is provided with a series of vertical outstanding ribs 16 which are located at the forward or convex side thereof for the purpose of preventing sideways or lateral splashing of foods and liquid which may be dropped on the bib…such foods and liquids will be directed downwardly to the trough"; Col. 1 Line 47 "up-turned trough 12"; Arseneault teaches the ribs which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of controlling spill and flow as recited),
a lower section with a debris catching pocket attached to the apron front formed by an outer surface wall, two side walls and a bottom panel to catch and retain the liquid and food debris from leaking on the individual clothing and/or the seat of the vehicle (see Fig. 1; for side walls --Col. 1 Lines 52-54 "trough 12 which is preferably provided with rounded interior corners 14"; see Figs. 2, 5 for the outer surface wall, bottom panel; Arseneault teaches the pocket structures which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of catching and retaining liquid and food debris from a user or vehicle seat, as recited).
Arseneault does not explicitly teach that the neck band is adjustable with a hook and lock fastener.
Wang teaches an adjustable neck band with a hook and lock fastener for attaching to the neck of an individual and protecting the shoulder area (see Fig. 1; [0082] "The first pocket strap 5 is provided with a buttonhole 6, and the second pocket strap 1 is provided with a buckle 7. The buckle 7 can be buckled into the buttonhole 6, so as to realize a reliable connection between the first pocket strap 5 and the second pocket strap 1"; Wang teaches the neck band with a hook and lock fastener which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being adjustable, attaching, and protecting as recited).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arseneault’s neck band with that of Wang’s as a known method of effectively connecting a protective bib to a wearer, especially one for food ([0002]), which Arseneault desires as well (Col. 1 Lines 7-14).
Arseneault does not explicitly teach the middle section with side barriers controlling the flow of any liquid and food debris from getting onto your clothes.
DeStefano teaches a middle section with side barriers controlling the flow of any liquid and food debris from getting onto your clothes (see Figs. 1, 3, 5; Col. 5 Lines 66-67 "barriers or deflectors 60, 62 on the 20, 22 opposite sides of the bib are also raised"; DeStefano teaches the side barriers which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of controlling as recited).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arseneault’s middle section with the side barriers of DeStefano in order to prevent messes that would occur otherwise (Col. 6 Lines 1-4).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Arseneault teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Arseneault further teaches wherein the hook and lock fastener in the attached position by mean of the interaction of inserting the hook fastener into the hook locking device securing the present invention to the individual neck in the unattached position and the hook fastener, hook locking device before being attached (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Wang [0082]; Wang teaches the hook fastener and at least one lock fastener which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being in an attached position and an unattached position relative to each other in regards to the wearer’s neck, and can have such an attached position on the neck whether first unattached before being on the neck or being first attached before being on the neck, as it depends on the size of the neck anatomy, wherein such a use would be product by process; any method of use is treated functionally as aforementioned, and any structure as a result of a process is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if Arseneault’s process results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other attachment methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the method as claimed since such an attachment process is a well-known technique in the art. It is noted that the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Arseneault teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Arseneault further teaches wherein the elongated barrier strips both sides of the apron front (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see DeStefano Figs. 1, 3, 5; Col. 5 Lines 66-67 "barriers or deflectors 60, 62 on the 20, 22 opposite sides of the bib are also raised", wherein the barriers are elongated and therefore strips),
middle section include an elongated barrier strip with an contoured barrier edge designed to prevent excess liquid and solid materials from spilling over (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Fig. 5 for shaped barrier edge and therefore contoured; Arseneault teaches the contour which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of preventing excess spill as recited).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Arseneault teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Arseneault further teaches wherein the adjustable neck band before being attached to the individual neck can be adjusted by relocating the hook into any of the locking fasteners located on the upper section to fit any size neck (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Wang [0082]; Wang teaches the hook fastener and a plurality of locking fasteners which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of the hook fastener relocating into any of the locking fasteners for desired fit as recited).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Arseneault teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Arseneault further teaches the apron of claim 1 is made of a waterproof non-stick silicone material (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Wang [0090] "the pocket body and the thickened portion 3 are made of…silicone"; Wang [0091] "dining bag provided in the embodiment is made of…silicone", wherein it is known in the art that silicone is a moldable plastic and is non-stick).
As such, Arseneault teaches all of the elements of the instant invention as discussed in detail above except providing the silicone material. Although Arseneault does not directly teach this limitation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Arseneault by making it of silicone. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a commonly used material, in the apparel art, to make liquid metal on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, the use of silicone would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a well-known material for a zipper is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742,82, USPQ2d 1382, 1396 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arseneault’s apron to be of silicone as taught by Wang as a known effective material for a bib for impermeability, preventing liquid penetration, and easy cleaning ([0002]).
As best understood, Claim(s) 2, “first” Claim 3, “second” Claim 3, Claim 4, Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arseneault (USPN 2569915) in view of Wang (CN 219323183) and DeStefano (USPN 7469425), further in view of Didiodato (US Publication 2012/0047617).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Arseneault teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Arseneault further teaches wherein the pocket debris catcher is sturdy with a pocket opening (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Fig. 1; Arseneault teaches the pocket which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being sturdy),
wherein the pocket is wide (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Fig. 1).
Arseneault does not explicitly teach wherein the pocket opening with a lower section reinforced with three heavy-duty pocket support ribs to prevent the wide pocket from collapsing when filled.
Didiodato teaches wherein the pocket opening lower section reinforced with heavy-duty pocket support ribs to prevent the wide pocket from collapsing when filled (see Fig. 6 for lower section of pocket opening with the support ribs; see Figs. 8, 9 for two support ribs; [0033] "Plastic ribs 212 are positioned in a bottom portion pocket 231 and are generally U or J shaped reinforcing and/or stiffening ribs wherein plastic band 210 together with plastic ribs 212 ensure that pocket opening 124 remains in the open position 125"; [0033] "purpose of frame 208 which is comprised of plastic band 210 and plastic ribs 212 is to maintain opening 124 in the open position 125,"; Didiodato teaches the pocket ribs which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being heavy-duty support to prevent the pocket from collapsing when filled as recited).
Didiodato at least suggests three support ribs (see Figs. 8, 9 for two support ribs).
A mere duplication of parts is seen as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such duplication into at least three support ribs instead of two support ribs would not have produced a new and unexpected result and therefore has no patentable significance. In other words, a mere duplication of parts of an element involves only routine skill in the art. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Furthermore, no criticality for three has been indicated in the disclosure ([044], [045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arseneault’s pocket opening with the three support ribs of Didiodato depending on the desired level of guarantee that the pocket remains open ([0033]) in order for effective collection ([0039]), which Arseneault desires as well (Col. 1 Lines 7-14).
Regarding “first” Claim 3, modified Arseneault teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Arseneault further teaches the sturdy pocket of claim 2, having a pocket bottom at one end, pocket outer surface wall together with the side wall panels and reinforced by the pocket support ribs to create the pocket opening (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejection—see rejection of Claim 1; wherein the side walls indicate panels; Arseneault teaches the pocket bottom, pocket outer surface wall together with side wall panels and reinforced by pocket support ribs and pocket opening which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as the recited elements being capable of creating the pocket opening).
Regarding “second” Claim 3, modified Arseneault teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Arseneault further teaches wherein the spill control ribs located in the middle section of the clothing protector apron (see rejection of Claim 1),
wherein the spill control ribs are extending vertically along the clothing protector apron in a linear rib pattern from the top middle section to just above the lower section (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Figs. 1, 4, 5, especially for just above the lower section with the pocket).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Arseneault teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in "second" Claim 3.
Arseneault further teaches spill control ribs of “second’ claim 3, has a curved rib pattern incorporated into the apron front middle section ending just above the pocket opening (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Figs. 1, 4, 5; Col. 2 Lines 3-10 "front of the device is provided with a series of vertical outstanding ribs which are located at the forward or convex side thereof", wherein convex side indicates curvature, and therefore ribs have curvature in a curved rib pattern in the apron front middle section; see Figs. 1, 4, 5, especially for ending just above the pocket opening).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Arseneault teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in "second" Claim 3.
Arseneault further teaches spill control ribs of “second” claim 3, having a concave rib groove that can control the speed and direction of any liquid and solid materials into the sturdy pocket (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Figs. 4 and 5, wherein ribs are raised and therefore present a groove, wherein the groove is concave based on the perspective upon the curved surface; Arseneault teaches the spill control ribs with concave rib groove which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of controlling speed and direction of liquids/solids into the sturdy pocket as recited).
Pro Se Resources
Applicant may access USPTO Patent Public Search at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/search/patent-public-search in order to find copies of the references cited herein, if not already attached.
Any text that was in the original specification, claims, or abstract can be made clearer. However, Applicant is reminded to be cautious pertaining to inadvertently adding new matter in future amendments which will warrant U.S.C. 112(a) new matter rejections. New matter is considered any disclosure which is not inarguably disclosed/clear or blatantly apparent in the original filing.
A plurality of pro se assistance resources are available to the public through the USPTO website, which can be found at the link here--
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/using-legal-services/pro-se-assistance-program
--accessible by searching uspto.gov in a web browser, clicking “patents”, “legal assistance and resources”, “filing a patent application on your own”.
Additional claim drafting assistance can be found at the link here--
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/February%20Info%20Chat%20-%20Claim%20Drafting.pdf
--accessible at that initial pro se assistance program link, clicking “filing a patent application on your own,” “pro se resources,” “prior to filing”, “claim drafting assistance”.
Additional assistance as to how to respond to the instant rejection in an amendment response can be found at the link here--
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/formatrevamdtprac.pdf
--accessible at that that initial pro se assistance program link, clicking “filing a patent application on your own,” “pro se resources,” “during examination”, “sample amendment format”.
Additional assistance can be found by contacting the pro se assistance line at (866) 767-3848 available 8:30am to 5pm EST Monday-Friday or email innovationdevelopment@uspto.gov, or to review the USPTO website.
Examiner cannot provide legal assistance or advice to the applicant. Should legal guidance be desired, applicant can review eligibility for a pro bono program or can find a registered patent practitioner at the link here:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/legal-assistance-and-resources
To avoid abandonment of the application, applicant must formally submit a written response in reply to the office action within 6 months of the mailing of this action (such as in the form of the sample amendment aforementioned), wherein responding within the first 3 months will avoid incurring additional extension fees. See additional guidance at the link here:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Sumimoto et al (JP 2016121413), Cardinale (US Publication 2019/0133204), Brett et al (GB 2453