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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to amendment received on 04/28/26. Claim 1 has been amended and claim 22 has been newly added. Claims 1, 3-11, 15-16 and 18-22 are examined herein. The amended abstract and specification are sufficient to overcome the previous objections.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “means of fixing means”, which is defined in the specification as a releasable fastener, adhesive or stitching.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "outer surface" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 15 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christopher et al. (US 2,202,415).
In regard to claim 1, Christopher et al. teaches a wearable protection device comprising at least one inflatable member designed to move between a deflated condition and an inflated condition remaining inside a casing of the wearable protection device (see figures 1 vs. figure 2 and page 1, column 1, lines 7-12 and page 1, column 2, lines 51-55, the wearable protection device comprises the inflatable member, so the garment or belt with the attached preserver is the wearable protection device), characterized in that, in the deflated condition (figure 1, page 1, column 1, lines 43-45) the at least one inflatable member (inflatable member is inner tube: 12) has:(i) outer dimensions corresponding to the dimensions of available space inside the casing (see figures 1 and 3); and (ii) at least one portion folded with an accordion shape (see figure 3, page 1, column 2, lines 13-25), whereby such an accordion- shaped portion expands when the at least one inflatable member moves from the deflated condition into the inflated condition and such an accordion-shaped portion contracts when the at least one inflatable member moves from the inflated condition to the deflated condition (see figures 1-3, column 2, lines 1-25); wherein the casing is delimited between an inner surface and outer surface of the wearable protection device (the wearable protection device comprising the inflatable member, so that the casing is part of the wearable protection device and the casing is delimited between an inner surface and an outer surface of the wearable protection device which is the inner and outer surface of the casing see page 1 column 1, lines 7-12 and page 1, column 2, lines 51-55), the casing comprises at least one accordion-shaped portion (casing is outer tube: 13), the accordion-shaped portion of the at least one inflatable member being configured to expand when the at least one inflatable member moves in the inflated condition so as to cause the expansion of the corresponding accordion-shaped portion of the casing (figures 1-3, page 1, column 2, lines 13-25), whereby a larger area of a user's body is covered by the at least one inflatable member and the casing (see figures 1 vs. figure 2 and page 1, column 1, lines 7-12).
In regard to claim 3, Christopher et al. teaches the accordion-shaped portion of the at least one inflatable member and the accordion-shaped portion of the casing are shaped and sized so that the accordion-shaped portion of the at least one inflatable member is housed into the accordion-shaped portion of the casing (see pleats: 14 in both outer and inner tube in figure 3 and page 1, column 2, lines 13-25).
In regard to claim 4, Christopher et al. teaches an outer layer and/or an inner layer of the casing consists at least partially of an accordion-shaped portion suitable to match a facing accordion-shaped portion of the at least one inflatable member (see pleats: 14 in both outer and inner tube in figure 3 and page 1, column 2, lines 13-25).
In regard to claim 5, Christopher et al. teaches the casing is provided with an accordion-shaped portion in proximity of the accordion-shaped portion of the inflatable member (see pleats: 14 in both outer and inner tube in figure 3 and page 1, column 2, lines 13-25).
In regard to claim 6, Christopher et al. teaches the casing is delimited between an inner surface and an outer surface of the wearable protection device (wearable protection device is life preserver and the casing/outer layer is delimited between an inner and outer surface of the life preserver: see figure 1).
In regard to claim 7, Christopher et al. teaches the casing is provided on a supporting layer of the wearable protection device (wearable protection device is garment or belt: page 1, column 2, lines 51-56).
In regard to claim 8, Christopher et al. teaches said accordion-shaped portion of the casing is arranged at one or more of the shoulder area, the chest area, and the back area of the wearable protection device (wearable protection device is belt and the casing would be attached/arranged at the back area or the chest area: page 1, column 2, lines 51-56).
In regard to claim 9, Christopher et al. teaches at least one end of the accordion-shaped portion of the at least one inflatable member is fixed by means of fixing means to a corresponding end of the casing (page 1, column 2, lines 35-47, releasable fastener: clamping member is the means attaching the casing and inflatable end together).
In regard to claim 10, Christopher et al. teaches side ends of the accordion-shaped portion of the at least one inflatable member are fixed to corresponding ends of the accordion-shaped portion of the casing (page 1, column 2, lines 35-47, clamping member attaching the casing and inflatable end together).
In regard to claim 11, Christopher et al. teaches one or more of the accordion-shaped portion of the at least one inflatable member and the accordion-shaped portion of the casing are obtained by means of a thermoforming process of at least a portion of inflatable member and/or the casing (this is a product-by-process limitation see MPEP: 2113, the method of manufacture is not needed to be taught by the prior art as long as the final apparatus structure is taught by the prior art, Christopher et al. teaches the inflation member and casing with accordion-shaped portions: see pleats: 14 in figure 3 and page 1, column 2, lines 13-25).
In regard to claim 15, Christopher et al. teaches the casing is made at least partially with an elastic or stretchable material (casing is made of rubber: page 3, column 1, lines 6-8, which is stretchable and elastic).
In regard to claim 18, Christopher et al. teaches the casing consists of a pocket provided on the inner surface or on the outer surface of the wearable protection device (wearable protection device is belt and the pocket/life preserver is located on the outer surface of the belt: page 1, column 2, lines 51-56).
In regard to claim 19, Christopher et al. teaches side ends of the accordion-shaped portion of the at least one inflatable member are fixed to corresponding ends of the accordion-shaped portion of the casing (clamping members: 18 affix the casing the inflatable member, page 1, column 2, lines 35-46).
In regard to claim 20, Christopher et al. teaches the casing is provided with an elastic portion (casing is made of rubber: page 3, column 1, lines 6-8).
In regard to claim 21, Christopher et al. teaches the accordion-shaped portion of the at least one inflatable member is configured to expand via folded end portions when the at least one inflatable member moves in the inflated condition and to cause corresponding expansion of the accordion-shaped portion of the casing as warranted (see figures 1-3, page 1, column 2, lines 13-25).
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher et al. (US 2,202,415) in view of Mazzarolo et al. (US 2012/0073035).
Christopher et al. fails to teach the inflator device containing more than one inflation charge. Further, Christopher et al. teaches the inflator device designed to be coupled to the at least one inflatable member for inflating said at least one inflatable member (pressure bottle: 15 and page 2, lines 44-58).
In regard to claim 16, Mazzarolo et al. teaches an inflator device, wherein the inflator device is designed to be coupled to an inflatable member for inflating said at least one inflatable member (paragraphs 0038-0039); said inflator device containing more than one inflation charge (paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the inflator device of Christopher et al. with more than one charge as taught by Mazzarolo et al., since the inflator of Christopher et al. provided with more than one charge would allow for repeated uses of the protection device (see paragraph 0038 of Mazzarolo et al.).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher et al. (US 2,202,415) in view of Mazzarolo et al. (US 2022/0361598).
Christopher et al. fails to teach the casing being made from a breathable material.
In regard to claim 22, Mazzarolo et al. teaches an inflatable device with an outer casing layer and an inner inflatable layer, the outer casing layer is made of a breathable material (paragraphs 0103).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the outer casing layer of Christopher et al. in a breathable material as taught by Mazzarolo et al., since the outer layer being breathable provides an inflatable device that allows for breathability and therefore more comfort during use by the wearer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks that Christopher et al. fails to teach the limitation “wherein the casing is delimited between an inner surface and outer surface of the wearable protection device” as amended into claim 1.
Christopher et al. teaches this limitation as detailed above in the office action.
Applicant remarks that Christopher et al. is in a different field of endeavor and solves a different problem and is therefore non-analogous art.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102, and is anticipatory even if it solves a different problem, provided it discloses every element of the claim. Christopher et al. discloses every element of claim 1 and therefore the non-analogous art argument is moot. In regard to claims 16 and 22 a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is used, Christopher et al. and Applicant’s invention are analogous art, since they both teach a wearable inflatable device to protect a user.
Applicant remarks that Christopher et al. teaches away from the focus of Applicant’s design, since Christopher et al. teaches an inflatable device for attachment to a garment and not part of the garment structure.
It is noted that the claims do not require a garment, the term is not used in the claims, the claims are directed to a wearable protection device. Christopher et al., teaches a wearable protection device and therefore the garment remark is moot.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571)272-5559. 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.
ALISSA L. HOEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights